The geometry vs. the algebra of meaning: Gardenfors vs. Jackendoff

In this paper Gardenfors's geometric approach to meaning in natural language is compared to Jackendoffs algebraic one, and this is done against the backdrop of formal semantics. Ultimately, the paper tries to show that Jackendoffs framework is to be preferred to all others. The paper proceeds as follows. In Section 2, the common theoretical commitments of Gardenfors and Jackendoff are outlined, and it is attempted to argue briefly that they are on the right track. In Section 3, the basics of the two frameworks to be compared are laid out, and it is assessed how they deal with some central issues in semantic theory, namely reference and truth, lexical decomposition, and compositionality. In Section 4, we get into the nitty-gritty of how Gardenfors and Jackendoff actually proceed in semantic analysis, using an example of a noun and a verb (embedded in a sentence). In Section 5, the merits of Gardenfors's empiricism when it comes to word learning and concept acquisition are assessed and compared to the moderate nativism of Jackendoff, and it is argued that Jackendoffs nativism is to be preferred. In the sixth section, the semantic intemalism common to both frameworks is commented on.