Contrasting applications of logic in natural language syntactic description

Abstract. Formal syntax has hitherto worked mostly with theoretical frameworks that take grammars to be generative, in Emil Post’s sense: they provide recursive enumerations of sets. This work has its origins in Post’s formalization of proof theory. There is an alternative, with roots in the semantic side of logic: model-theoretic syntax (MTS). MTS takes grammars to be sets of statements of which (algebraically idealized) well-formed expressions are models. We clarify the difference between the two kinds of framework and review their separate histories, and then argue that the generative perspective has misled linguists concerning the properties of natural languages. We select two elementary facts about natural language phenomena for discussion: the gradient character of the property of being ungrammatical and the open nature of natural language lexicons. We claim that the MTS perspective on syntactic structure does much better on representing the facts in these two domains. We also examine the arguments linguists give for the infinitude of the class of all expressions in a natural language. These arguments turn out on examination to be either unsound or lacking in empirical content. We claim that infinitude is an unsupportable claim that is also unimportant. What is actually needed is a way of representing the structure of expressions in a natural language without assigning any importance to the notion of a unique set with definite cardinality that contains all and only the expressions in the language. MTS provides that