Linguistic Society of America The Structure of a Semantic Theory Author(s): Jerrold J. Katz and Jerry A. Fodor Source: Language, Vol. 39, No. 2 (Apr. - Jun., 1963), pp. 170-210 Published by: Linguistic Society of America Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/411200 . Accessed: 22/01/2014 11:13 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp . JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Linguistic Society of America is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Language. http://www.jstor.org This content downloaded from 193.219.45.7 on Wed, 22 Jan 2014 11:13:27 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions THE STRUCTURE OF A SEMANTIC THEORY JERROLDJ. KATZ JERRY A. FODOR MassachusettsInstitute of Technology 1. Introduction.This paperl does not attempt to present a semantic theory of a natural language,but rather to characterizethe form of such a theory. A semantic theory of a natural languageis part of a linguisticdescription of that language. Our problem, on the other hand, is part of the general theory of language, fully on a par with the problem of characterizingthe structure of grammarsof natural languages. A characterizationof the abstract form of a semantic theory is given by a metatheory which answers such questions as these: What is the domain of a semantictheory? What are the descriptiveand explanatory goals of a semantic theory? What mechanismsare employed in pursuit of these goals? What are the empiricaland methodologicalconstraints upon a semantic theory? The present paper approachesthe problem of characterizingthe form of semantic theories by describingthe structureof a semantic theory of English. There can be little doubt but that the results achieved will apply directly to semantic theories of languagesclosely related to English. The question of their applicabilityto semantictheories of more distant languageswill be left for sub- sequent investigationsto explore. Nevertheless, the present investigation will provide results that can be applied to semantictheories of languagesunrelated to English and suggestionsabout how to proceedwith the constructionof such theories. We may put our problemthis way: What form should a semantictheory of a natural language take to accommodatein the most revealing way the facts about the semanticstructure of that languagesupplied by descriptiveresearch? This questionis of primaryimportance at the presentstage of the development of semanticsbecause semantics suffers not from a dearthof facts about meanings and meaning relations in natural languages, but rather from the lack of an adequate theory to organize, systematize, and generalize these facts. Facts about the semantics of natural languageshave been contributedin abundance by many diverse fields, including philosophy, linguistics, philology, and psy- chology. Indeed, a compendiumof such facts is readily available in any good dictionary.But at presentthe superabundanceof facts obscuresa clear view of their interrelations,while such theories as have been proposedto account for the facts have, in general, been either too loosely formulated or too weak in explanatoryand descriptivepower to succeed. 2. The projectionproblem. A full synchronicdescription of a naturallanguage is a grammaticaland semantic characterizationof that language (where the term 'grammatical'is construed broadly to include phonology, phonemics, 1This work was supported in part by the U. S. Army Signal Corps, the Air Force Officeof Scientific Research, and the Office of Naval Research; and in part by the National Science Foundation (Grant G-13903). 170 This content downloaded from 193.219.45.7 on Wed, 22 Jan 2014 11:13:27 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions THE STRUCTUREOF A SEMANTICTHEORY 171 morphology,and syntax). Hence, a semantic theory must be constructedto have whatever propertiesare demanded by its role in linguistic description. Since, however,the goals of such descriptionare reasonablywell understoodand since, in comparisonto semantics,the natureof grammarhas been clearlyarticu- lated, we may expect that by studying the contributionthat semanticswill be requiredto maketo a synchronicdescription of a languagewe can clarifythe sub- ject, the form of generalizations,the goals, and the empiricaland methodological constraintsupon a semantictheory. A fluent speaker'smastery of his languageexhibits itself in his ability to pro- duce and understandthe sentences of his language, INCLUDING INDEFINITELY MANYTHAT ARE WHOLLY NOVELTO HIM (i.e. his ability to produce and understand ANY sentenceof his language2).The emphasisupon novel sentencesis important. The most characteristicfeature of language is its ability to make available an infinity of sentences from which the speaker can select appropriateand novel ones to use as the need arises.That is to say, what qualifiesone as a fluentspeaker is not the ability to imitate previouslyheard sentencesbut ratherthe ability to produceand understandsentences never before encountered.The striking fact about the use of language is the absence of repetition:almost every sentence uttered is uttered for the first time. This can be substantiatedby checkingtexts for the numberof times a sentence is repeated.It is exceedinglyunlikely that even a single repetitionof a sentence of reasonablelength will be encountered. A synchronicdescription of a natural language seeks to determinewhat a fluent speakerknows about the structureof his languagethat enableshim to use and understandits sentences.Since a fluentspeaker is able to use and understand any sentencedrawn from the INFINITE set of sentencesof his language,and since, at any time, he has only encountereda FINITE set of sentences,it followsthat the speaker'sknowledge of his language takes the form of rules which project the finite set of sentenceshe has fortuitouslyencountered to the infinite set of sen- tences of the language.A descriptionof the languagewhich adequately repre- sents the speaker'slinguistic knowledge must, accordingly,state these rules. The problemof formulatingthese rules we shall refer to as the projectionproblem. This problem requiresfor its solution rules which project the infinite set of sentencesin a way which mirrorsthe way that speakersunderstand novel sen- tences. In encounteringa novel sentence the speakeris not encounteringnovel elements but only a novel combinationof familiar elements. Since the set of sentencesis infiniteand each sentenceis a differentconcatenation of morphemes, the fact that a speakercan understandany sentencemust mean that the way he understandssentences which he has never previously encounteredis composi- tional: on the basis of his knowledgeof the grammaticalproperties and the mean- ings of the morphemesof the language,the ruleswhich the speakerknows enable 2 There are exceptions, such as sentences with technical words that the speaker does not know and sentences too long for the speaker to scan in his lifetime. But these exceptions are of no systematic importance. Analogously, a person's mastery of an algorithm for proposi- tional calculus can be said to exhibit itself in his ability to decide mechanically whether ANY well-formed formula of propositional calculus is a tautology, even though some well- formed formulae are too long for human processing, etc. This content downloaded from 193.219.45.7 on Wed, 22 Jan 2014 11:13:27 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 172 LANGUAGE, VOLUME 39, NUMBER 2 (1963) him to determine the meaning of a novel sentence in terms of the manner in which the parts of the sentence are composed to form the whole. Correspondingly, we can expect that a system of rules which solves the projection problem must reflect the compositional character of the speaker's linguistic knowledge.3 3. Synchronic linguistic description minus grammar equals semantics. A description of a natural language is, inter alia, a solution to the projection problem for that language. If we are to discover the goals of semantics by subtracting from the goals of a description of a language whatever the grammar contributes to the solution of the projection problem, we must consider the respect in which a grammar is a solution for the grammatical aspect of the projection problem. Grammars answer the question: What does the speaker know about the phono- logical and syntactic structure of his language that enables him to use and under- stand any of its sentences, including those he has not previously heard? They do so by providing rules which generate the sentences of the speaker's language. In particular, these rules generate infinitely many strings of morphemes which, though they are sentences of the language, have never been uttered by speakers.4 Moreover, a grammar generates the sentences which a speaker is, in principle, capable of understanding in such a way that their derivations provide their structural descriptions. Such descriptions specify the elements out of which a sentence is constructed, the grammatical relations between these elements and between the higher constituents of the sentence, the relations between the sen- tence and other sentences of the language, and the ways