Volume 26, Issue 2-3
  • ISSN 0929-0907
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9943
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



This paper aims to characterize the relationship between information as defined in the information-theoretic approach and linguistic meaning by way of formulation of computations over the lexicon of a natural language. Information in its information theoretic sense is supposed not to be equivalent to linguistic meaning, whereas linguistic meaning has an intrinsic connection to information as far as the form and structure of the lexicon of a language (in a non-lexicological sense) is concerned. We argue that these two apparently conflicting aspects of the relationship between information and linguistic meaning can be unified by showing that information conserves linguistic meaning, only insofar as computations of a certain kind are defined on the symbolic elements of a lexicon. This has consequences not merely for the nature of lexical learning – natural or artificial or otherwise – but also for the conservation of information in axiomatic systems.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Barwise, Jon & Jerry Seligman
    1997Information flow: The logic of distributed systems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511895968
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511895968 [Google Scholar]
  2. Benthem, Johan van & Maricarmen Martinez
    2008 The stories of logic and information. InPieter Adriaans & Johan van Benthem (eds.), Philosophy of information, vol.8, 217–280. Amsterdam: Elsevier. 10.1016/B978‑0‑444‑51726‑5.50012‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-51726-5.50012-1 [Google Scholar]
  3. Bloomfield, Leonard
    1933Language. New York: Henry Holt.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Boland, Richard J. Jr. & Kalle Lyytinen
    2017 The limits to language in doing system design. European Journal of Information Systems26(3). 248–259. 10.1057/s41303‑017‑0043‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1057/s41303-017-0043-4 [Google Scholar]
  5. Bowerman, Melissa
    1988 The ‘no negative evidence’ problem: How do children avoid constructing an overly general grammar?InJohn Hawkins (ed.), Explaining language universals, 73–101. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Bremer, Manuel E.
    2003 Do logical truths carry information?Minds and Machines13(4). 567–575. 10.1023/A:1026256918837
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026256918837 [Google Scholar]
  7. Bresnan, Joan
    2001Lexical functional syntax. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Carnap, Rudolf & Yehoshua Bar-Hillel
    1952An outline of a theory of semantic information. Technical Report 247. Research Laboratory of Electronics, MIT.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Clark, Stephen
    2015 Vector space models of lexical meaning. InShalom Lappin & Chris Fox (eds.), Handbook of contemporary semantic theory, 493–522. Oxford: Blackwell. 10.1002/9781118882139.ch16
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118882139.ch16 [Google Scholar]
  10. Dascal, Marcelo
    2003Interpretation and understanding. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/z.120
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.120 [Google Scholar]
  11. Erteschik-Shir, Nomi
    2007Information structure: The syntax-discourse interface. New York: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Fillmore, Charles
    1976 Frame semantics and the nature of language. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences: Conference on the Origin and Development of Language and Speech280(1). 20–32. 10.1111/j.1749‑6632.1976.tb25467.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.1976.tb25467.x [Google Scholar]
  13. Francez, Nissim & Shuly Wintner
    2011Unification grammars. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139013574
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139013574 [Google Scholar]
  14. Goldberg, Adele
    2006Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. New York: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. 2019Explain me this: Creativity, competition, and the partial productivity of constructions. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Gregory, Howard
    2015Language and logics: An introduction to the logical foundations of language. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Hampton, James A.
    2017 Compositionality and concepts. InJames A. Hampton & Yoad Winter (eds.), Language, cognition, and mind: Vol. 3. Compositionality and concepts in linguistics and psychology, 95–122. New York: Springer Nature.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Harris, Zellig
    1991A theory of language and information: A mathematical approach. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Hintikka, Jaakko
    1973Logic, language-games and information. New York: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Jackendoff, Ray
    2002Foundations of language: Brain, meaning, grammar, evolution. New York: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198270126.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198270126.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  21. Kamp, Hans & Martin Stokhof
    2008 Information in natural language. InPieter Adriaans & Johan van Benthem (eds.), Philosophy of information, vol.8, 49–111. Amsterdam: Elsevier. 10.1016/B978‑0‑444‑51726‑5.50008‑X
    https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-51726-5.50008-X [Google Scholar]
  22. Lambrecht, Knud
    1996Information structure and sentence form: A theory of topic, focus, and the mental representations of discourse referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Lyytinen, Kalle
    1985 Implications of theories of language for information systems. MIS Quarterly9(1). 61–74. 10.2307/249274
    https://doi.org/10.2307/249274 [Google Scholar]
  24. Menzel, Christopher
    1999 The objective conception of contexts and its logic. Minds and Machines9(1). 29–56. 10.1023/A:1008390129138
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008390129138 [Google Scholar]
  25. Mondal, Prakash
    2012 Can internalism and externalism be reconciled in a biological epistemology of language?Biosemiotics5(1). 61–82. 10.1007/s12304‑011‑9120‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-011-9120-6 [Google Scholar]
  26. 2018 Lexicon, meaning relations and semantic networks. The 2nd Workshop on Natural Language for Artificial Intelligence (NL4AI 2018) 2. 40–52.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Newport, Elissa L., Daphne Bavelier & Helen J. Neville
    2002 Critical thinking about critical periods: Perspectives on a critical period for language acquisition. InEmmanuel Dupoux (ed.), Language, brain and cognitive development, 481–502. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Pelletier, Francis J.
    2017 Compositionality and concepts – A perspective from formal semantics and philosophy of language. InJames A. Hampton & Yoad Winter (eds.), Language, cognition, and mind, vol. 3: Compositionality and concepts in linguistics and psychology, 31–94. New York: Springer Nature. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑45977‑6_3
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-45977-6_3 [Google Scholar]
  29. Pollard, Carl & Sag, Ivan
    1994Head-driven phrase structure grammar. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Pullum, Geoffrey K.
    2013 The central question in comparative syntactic metatheory. Mind and Language28(4). 492–521. 10.1111/mila.12029
    https://doi.org/10.1111/mila.12029 [Google Scholar]
  31. Pustejovsky, James
    1995The generative lexicon. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. 2012 Type theory and lexical decomposition. InJames Pustejovsky, Pierrette Bouillon, Hitoshi Isahara, Kyoko Kanzaki & Chungmin Lee (eds.), Advances in generative lexicon theory, 9–38. Heidelberg: Springer.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Seuren, Pieter A. M.
    2013From Whorf to Montague: Explorations in the theory of language. New York: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199682195.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199682195.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  34. Shannon, Claude E. & Warren Weaver
    1949The mathematical theory of communication. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Shieber, Stuart M.
    1992Constraint-based grammar formalisms. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Tesnière, Lucien
    1959Eléments de syntaxe structurale. Paris: Klincksieck.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Turney, Peter D. & Patrick Pantel
    2010 From frequency to meaning: Vector space models of semantics. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research37. 141–188. 10.1613/jair.2934
    https://doi.org/10.1613/jair.2934 [Google Scholar]
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): axiomatic systems; information; lexicon; meaning; syntax
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error