Talk:Formal semantics (natural language)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Formal semantics (natural language) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Linguistics: Theoretical Linguistics High‑importance

	Linguistics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Theoretical Linguistics Task Force.

Philosophy: Logic Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Logic

No mention[edit]

No mention of Tarski? This page sucks. Jargon thrown around with no explanation. Grade: F. Stub basically. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.253.252.177 (talk • contribs) 12:48, April 18, 2011

Wrong article. Try the real formal semantics article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:01, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You mean Formal semantics (logic). And "real" depends on your field. Tijfo098 (talk) 15:13, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have doubts that this split should have been made, but I apologize for calling it unreal. Actually, I was thinking for Formal semantics (mathematics), which should be considered related to, but not identical to, Formal semantics (logic). Still, I take your point, and Tarski is still related to the other article. Unfortunately, I do agree that this article is a stub, and I have doubts that it could be expanded. It's only because an unnamed editor was writing nonsense about this topic in the then-article formal semantics, that the split occured. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:35, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will do my best to expand it so it's not just a collection of jargon. Saeed's book, now at 3rd edition, has a good overview chapter, but I have yet to read it. As with other things in formal linguistics, these formal models are not "proved" as applying to natural language in a mathematical sense of the word, and unfortunately there is not a whole lot of experimental data to support them in the sense of scientific theories; linguists can't even make that claim for syntax, which is arguably an easier problem (you also have competing frameworks there). Actually, the syntactic framework adopted does affect what semantics one can build on it. Formal linguistics is a younger field than math logic. Their theories are however sufficiently distinct from what goes in to the semantics of other formal logics, so as not to clutter that article with them, just trust me on that issue for now. E.g. discourse representation theory is a section in Saeed 2nd and 3rd editions but it wasn't there in the 1st ed. (You would not want Syntax merged with Formal language, I presume.) Tijfo098 (talk) 11:46, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that Montague tried to follow Tarski in "the construction of a theory of truth [...] as the basic goal of a serious syntax and semantics", actually he tried to best him: "Unlike Tarski, Montague assumed that a truth-conditional semantics was possible also for natural languages, and not only for formalized ones." [1] Tijfo098 (talk) 15:16, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Later Montague revised his idea in a paper published posthumously in 1974: "semantic interepration does not directly apply to the natural language investigated, but to a 'translation' of it into the language of intensional logic". Tijfo098 (talk) 15:27, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add that some see an obvious problem in reducing semantics of natural languages to that of (truth-conditional) declarative statements. [2]. Tijfo098 (talk) 18:57, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should this be merged with Formal semantics (logic) ?[edit]

Merge I don't see what could be discussed in this article that couldn't be discussed on Formal semantics (logic). Brad7777 (talk) 10:43, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 8 February 2021[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 02:29, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

– The "formal semantics" page was a disambiguation page where the natural language entry was the only one with the title "formal semantics". Botterweg14 (talk) 14:46, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:20, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Formal semantics titles a dab page with significant content and so cannot be a new, target title in a move request unless it is also proposed to be renamed. This request has been altered to reflect that fact. P.I. Ellsworth ed. ^put'r there 10:38, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This requires a due RM. I've reverted the undiscussed the move, because there was no definite consensus on the talk page per the editors move summary "see talk". ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 20:32, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to open another discussion about the move, but I think WP:SILENT would apply here given that no objections were raised in response to my previous post. Botterweg14 (talk) 20:44, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Silence doesn't apply here given the amount of time was not what is normally required for a normal procedural discussion. ─ The Aafī on Mobile ^{^(talk)} 21:13, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to give it more time if you think a stronger consensus is likely to emerge, though I don't see that exception in the WP:SILENT guidelines. Did you yourself have any objections to the move? Botterweg14 (talk) 21:24, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just posting a message on a quiet talk page isn't a proper move request discussion, as it wasn't advertised as in the normal procedure. -Kj cheetham (talk) 22:44, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Botterweg14 and AafiOnMobile: I found the article just now at Formal semantics (natural language). Formal semantics is a disambig page. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:19, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposing that Formal semantics (natural language) be treated as primary topic. The article covers a primary subfield of linguistics and philosophy which is known primarily by that name. Published book titles use "formal semantics" without qualification to refer to natural language, e.g. the "Cambridge Handbook of Formal Semantics" is exclusively about natural language. The other articles linked on the current formal semantics disambiguation page are not entitled "formal semantics", while searching for "formal semantics" + "computer science" on Amazon returns one book called "Formal Semantics of Programming Languages", several that do not use the term "formal semantics" in the title, as well as numerous books which are actually about natural language formal semantics. Botterweg14 (talk) 23:40, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. A page views analysis places the issue of primary topic into question, since the "computer science" form of formal semantics gets significantly more views over the other two articles on the Formal semantics dab page. P.I. Ellsworth ed. ^put'r there 11:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, so if I’m wrong about this I think it would be because of the CS article. But I’m not sure pageviews is a useful metric here given that the natural language article is in very rough shape and that people coming to the CS article aren’t necessarily doing so based on the term “formal semantics”. Botterweg14 (talk) 18:14, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.