File size: 90,575 Bytes
6fa4bc9 | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656 657 658 659 660 661 662 663 664 665 666 667 668 669 670 671 672 673 674 675 676 677 678 679 680 681 682 683 684 685 686 687 688 689 690 691 692 693 694 695 696 697 698 699 700 701 702 703 704 705 706 707 708 709 710 711 712 713 714 715 716 717 718 719 720 721 722 723 724 725 726 727 728 729 730 731 732 733 734 735 736 737 738 739 740 741 742 743 744 745 746 747 748 749 750 751 752 753 754 755 756 757 758 759 760 761 762 763 764 765 766 767 768 769 770 771 772 773 774 775 776 777 778 779 780 781 782 783 784 785 786 787 788 789 790 791 792 793 794 795 796 797 798 799 800 801 802 803 804 805 806 807 808 809 810 811 812 813 814 815 816 817 818 819 820 821 822 823 824 825 826 827 828 829 830 831 832 833 834 835 836 837 838 839 840 841 842 843 844 845 846 847 848 849 850 851 852 853 854 855 856 857 858 859 860 861 862 863 864 865 866 867 868 869 870 871 872 873 874 875 876 877 878 879 880 881 882 883 884 885 886 887 888 889 890 891 892 893 894 895 896 897 898 899 900 901 902 903 904 905 906 907 908 909 910 911 912 913 914 915 916 917 918 919 920 921 922 923 924 925 926 927 928 929 930 931 932 933 934 935 936 937 938 939 940 941 942 943 944 945 946 947 948 949 950 951 952 953 954 955 956 957 958 959 960 961 962 963 964 965 966 967 968 969 970 971 972 973 974 975 976 977 978 979 980 981 982 983 984 985 986 987 988 989 990 991 992 993 994 995 996 997 998 999 1000 1001 1002 1003 1004 1005 1006 1007 1008 1009 1010 1011 1012 1013 1014 1015 1016 1017 1018 1019 1020 1021 1022 1023 1024 1025 1026 1027 1028 1029 1030 1031 1032 1033 1034 1035 1036 1037 1038 1039 1040 1041 1042 1043 1044 1045 1046 1047 1048 1049 1050 1051 1052 1053 1054 1055 1056 1057 1058 1059 1060 1061 1062 1063 1064 1065 1066 1067 1068 1069 1070 1071 1072 1073 1074 1075 1076 1077 1078 1079 1080 1081 1082 1083 1084 1085 1086 1087 1088 1089 1090 1091 1092 1093 1094 1095 1096 1097 1098 1099 1100 1101 1102 1103 1104 1105 1106 1107 1108 1109 1110 1111 1112 1113 1114 1115 1116 1117 1118 1119 1120 1121 1122 1123 1124 1125 1126 1127 1128 1129 1130 1131 1132 1133 1134 1135 1136 1137 1138 1139 1140 1141 1142 1143 1144 1145 1146 1147 1148 1149 1150 1151 1152 1153 1154 1155 1156 1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164 1165 1166 1167 1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174 1175 1176 1177 1178 1179 1180 1181 1182 1183 1184 1185 1186 1187 1188 1189 1190 1191 1192 1193 1194 1195 1196 1197 1198 1199 1200 1201 1202 1203 1204 1205 1206 1207 1208 1209 1210 1211 1212 1213 1214 1215 1216 1217 1218 1219 1220 1221 1222 1223 1224 1225 1226 1227 1228 1229 1230 1231 1232 1233 1234 1235 1236 1237 1238 1239 1240 1241 1242 1243 1244 1245 1246 1247 1248 1249 1250 1251 1252 1253 1254 1255 1256 1257 1258 1259 1260 1261 1262 1263 1264 1265 1266 1267 1268 1269 1270 1271 1272 1273 1274 1275 1276 1277 1278 1279 1280 1281 1282 1283 1284 1285 1286 1287 1288 1289 1290 1291 1292 1293 1294 1295 1296 1297 1298 1299 1300 1301 1302 1303 1304 1305 1306 1307 1308 1309 1310 1311 1312 1313 1314 1315 1316 1317 1318 1319 1320 1321 1322 1323 1324 1325 1326 1327 1328 1329 1330 1331 1332 1333 1334 1335 1336 1337 1338 1339 1340 1341 1342 1343 1344 1345 1346 1347 1348 1349 1350 1351 1352 1353 1354 1355 1356 1357 1358 1359 1360 1361 1362 1363 1364 1365 1366 1367 1368 1369 1370 1371 1372 1373 1374 1375 1376 1377 1378 1379 1380 1381 1382 1383 1384 1385 1386 1387 1388 1389 1390 1391 1392 1393 1394 1395 1396 1397 1398 1399 1400 1401 1402 1403 1404 1405 1406 1407 1408 1409 1410 1411 1412 1413 1414 1415 1416 1417 1418 1419 1420 1421 1422 1423 1424 1425 1426 1427 1428 1429 1430 1431 1432 1433 1434 1435 1436 1437 1438 1439 1440 1441 1442 1443 1444 1445 1446 1447 1448 1449 1450 1451 1452 1453 1454 1455 1456 1457 1458 1459 1460 1461 1462 1463 1464 1465 1466 1467 1468 1469 1470 1471 1472 1473 1474 1475 1476 1477 1478 1479 1480 1481 1482 1483 1484 1485 1486 1487 1488 1489 1490 1491 1492 1493 1494 1495 1496 1497 1498 1499 1500 1501 1502 1503 1504 1505 1506 1507 1508 1509 1510 1511 1512 1513 1514 1515 1516 1517 1518 1519 1520 1521 1522 1523 1524 1525 1526 1527 1528 1529 1530 1531 1532 1533 1534 1535 1536 1537 1538 1539 1540 1541 1542 1543 1544 1545 1546 1547 1548 1549 1550 1551 1552 1553 1554 1555 1556 1557 1558 1559 1560 1561 1562 1563 1564 1565 1566 1567 1568 1569 1570 1571 1572 1573 1574 1575 1576 1577 1578 1579 1580 1581 1582 1583 1584 1585 1586 1587 1588 1589 1590 1591 1592 1593 1594 1595 1596 1597 1598 1599 1600 1601 1602 1603 1604 1605 1606 1607 1608 1609 1610 1611 1612 1613 1614 1615 1616 1617 1618 1619 1620 1621 1622 1623 1624 1625 1626 1627 1628 1629 1630 1631 1632 1633 1634 1635 1636 1637 1638 1639 1640 1641 1642 1643 1644 1645 1646 1647 1648 1649 1650 1651 1652 1653 1654 1655 1656 1657 1658 1659 1660 1661 1662 1663 1664 1665 1666 1667 1668 1669 1670 1671 1672 1673 1674 1675 1676 1677 1678 1679 1680 1681 1682 1683 1684 1685 1686 1687 1688 1689 1690 1691 1692 1693 1694 1695 1696 1697 1698 1699 1700 1701 1702 1703 1704 1705 1706 1707 1708 1709 1710 1711 1712 1713 1714 1715 1716 1717 1718 1719 1720 1721 1722 1723 1724 1725 1726 1727 1728 1729 1730 1731 1732 1733 1734 1735 1736 1737 1738 1739 1740 1741 1742 1743 1744 1745 1746 1747 1748 1749 1750 1751 1752 1753 1754 1755 1756 1757 1758 1759 1760 1761 1762 1763 1764 1765 1766 1767 1768 1769 1770 1771 1772 1773 1774 1775 1776 1777 1778 1779 1780 1781 1782 1783 1784 1785 1786 1787 1788 1789 1790 1791 | {
"paper_id": "P89-1019",
"header": {
"generated_with": "S2ORC 1.0.0",
"date_generated": "2023-01-19T08:14:39.143426Z"
},
"title": "A Calculus for Semantic Composition and Scoping",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Fernando",
"middle": [
"C N"
],
"last": "Pereira",
"suffix": "",
"affiliation": {
"laboratory": "",
"institution": "SRI International",
"location": {
"addrLine": "333 R.avenswood Ave",
"postCode": "94025",
"settlement": "Menlo Park",
"region": "CA",
"country": "USA"
}
},
"email": ""
}
],
"year": "",
"venue": null,
"identifiers": {},
"abstract": "Certain restrictions on possible scopings of quantified noun phrases in natural language are usually expressed in terms of formal constraints on binding at a level of logical form. Such reliance on the form rather than the content of semantic interpretations goes against the spirit of compositionality. I will show that those scoping restrictions follow from simple and fundamental facts about functional application and abstraction, and can be expressed as constraints on the derivation of possible meanings for sentences rather than constraints of the alleged forms of those meanings.",
"pdf_parse": {
"paper_id": "P89-1019",
"_pdf_hash": "",
"abstract": [
{
"text": "Certain restrictions on possible scopings of quantified noun phrases in natural language are usually expressed in terms of formal constraints on binding at a level of logical form. Such reliance on the form rather than the content of semantic interpretations goes against the spirit of compositionality. I will show that those scoping restrictions follow from simple and fundamental facts about functional application and abstraction, and can be expressed as constraints on the derivation of possible meanings for sentences rather than constraints of the alleged forms of those meanings.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Abstract",
"sec_num": null
}
],
"body_text": [
{
"text": "Treatments of quantifier scope in Montague grammar (Montague, 1973; Dowty et al., 1981; Cooper, 1983) , transformational grammar (Reinhart, 1983; May, 1985; Helm, 1982; Roberts, 1987) and computational linguistics (Hobbs and Shieber, 1987; Moran, 1988) have depended implicitly or explicitly on a constraint on possible logical forms to explain why examples 1 such as (1) * A woman who saw every man disliked him are ungrammatical, and why in examples such as",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 51,
"end": 67,
"text": "(Montague, 1973;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF17"
},
{
"start": 68,
"end": 87,
"text": "Dowty et al., 1981;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF5"
},
{
"start": 88,
"end": 101,
"text": "Cooper, 1983)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF3"
},
{
"start": 129,
"end": 145,
"text": "(Reinhart, 1983;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF24"
},
{
"start": 146,
"end": 156,
"text": "May, 1985;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF15"
},
{
"start": 157,
"end": 168,
"text": "Helm, 1982;",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 169,
"end": 183,
"text": "Roberts, 1987)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF25"
},
{
"start": 214,
"end": 239,
"text": "(Hobbs and Shieber, 1987;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF10"
},
{
"start": 240,
"end": 252,
"text": "Moran, 1988)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF19"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "An Obvious Constraint?",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "(2) Every man saw a friend of his (3) Every admirer of a picture of himself is vain the every.., noun phrase must have wider scope than the a... noun phrase if the pronoun in each example is assumed to be bound by its antecedent. What exactly counts as bound anaphora varies between different accounts of the phenomena, but the rough intuition is that semantically a bound pronoun plays the role of a variable bound by the logical form (a quantifier) of its antecedent. Example (1) above is then \"explained\" by noting that lIn all the examples that follow, the pronoun and its intended antecedent are italicized. As usual, starred exampies are supposed to be ungrmticaL its logical form would be something like but this is \"ill-formed\" because variable m occurs as an argument of DISLIKED outside the scope of its binder Vm. 2 As for Examples (2) and (3), the argument is similar: wide scope for the logical form of the a... noun phrase would leave an occurrence of the variable that the logical form of every.., binds outside the scope of this quantifier. For lack of an official name in the literature for this constraint, I will call it here the free-variable constraint.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "An Obvious Constraint?",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "In accounts of scoping possibilities based on quantifier raising or storage (Cooper, 1983; van Eijck, 1985; May, 1985; Hobbs and Shieber, 1987) , the free-variable constraint is enforced either by keeping track of the set of free variables FREE(q) in each ralsable (storable) term q and when z E FREE(q) blocking the raising of q from any context Bz.t in which z is bound by some binder B, or by checking after all applications of raising (unstoring) that no variable occurs outside the scope of its binder.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 76,
"end": 90,
"text": "(Cooper, 1983;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF3"
},
{
"start": 91,
"end": 107,
"text": "van Eijck, 1985;",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 108,
"end": 118,
"text": "May, 1985;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF15"
},
{
"start": 119,
"end": 143,
"text": "Hobbs and Shieber, 1987)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF10"
},
{
"start": 240,
"end": 247,
"text": "FREE(q)",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "An Obvious Constraint?",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "The argument above is often taken to be so obvions and uncontroversial that it warrants only a remark in passing, if any (Cooper, 1983; Reinhart, 1983; Partee and Bach, 1984; May, 1985; van Riernsdijk and Williams, 1986; Williams, 1986; Roberts, 1987) , even though it depends on nontrivial assumptions on the role of logical form in linguistic theory and semantics.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 121,
"end": 135,
"text": "(Cooper, 1983;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF3"
},
{
"start": 136,
"end": 151,
"text": "Reinhart, 1983;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF24"
},
{
"start": 152,
"end": 174,
"text": "Partee and Bach, 1984;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF20"
},
{
"start": 175,
"end": 185,
"text": "May, 1985;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF15"
},
{
"start": 186,
"end": 220,
"text": "van Riernsdijk and Williams, 1986;",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 221,
"end": 236,
"text": "Williams, 1986;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF32"
},
{
"start": 237,
"end": 251,
"text": "Roberts, 1987)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF25"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "An Obvious Constraint?",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "First of all, and most immediately, there is the requirement for a logical-form level of representation, either in the predicate-logic format exemplified above or in some tree format as is usual in transformational grammar (Helm, 1982; Cooper, 1983; May, 1985; van Riemsdijk and Williams, 1986; Williams, 1986; Roberts, 1987) .",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 223,
"end": 235,
"text": "(Helm, 1982;",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 236,
"end": 249,
"text": "Cooper, 1983;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF3"
},
{
"start": 250,
"end": 260,
"text": "May, 1985;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF15"
},
{
"start": 261,
"end": 294,
"text": "van Riemsdijk and Williams, 1986;",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 295,
"end": 310,
"text": "Williams, 1986;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF32"
},
{
"start": 311,
"end": 325,
"text": "Roberts, 1987)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF25"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "An Obvious Constraint?",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "2In fact, this is & perfectly good ope~t well-formed for~ nmla and therefore the precise formulation of the constraint is more delicate than seems to be realized in the literature.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "An Obvious Constraint?",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "Second, and most relevant to Montague grammar and related approaches, the constraint is formulated in terms of restrictions on formal objects (logical forms) which in turn are related to meanings through a denotation relation. However, compositionaiity as it is commonly understood requires meanings of phrases to be functions of the meanings rather than the forms of their constituents. This is a problem even in accounts based on quantifier storage (Cooper, 1983; van Eijck, 1985) , which are precisely designed, as van Eijck puts it, to \"avoid all unnecessary reference to properties of ... formulas\" (van Eijck, 1985, p. 214) . In fact, van gijck proposes an intereating modification of Cooper storage that avoids Cooper's reliance on forbidding vacuous abstraction to block out cases in which a noun phrase is unstored while a noun phrase contained in it is still in store. However, this restriction does not deal with the case I have been discussing.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 451,
"end": 465,
"text": "(Cooper, 1983;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF3"
},
{
"start": 466,
"end": 482,
"text": "van Eijck, 1985)",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 604,
"end": 629,
"text": "(van Eijck, 1985, p. 214)",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "An Obvious Constraint?",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "It is also interesting to observe that a wider class of examples of forbidden scopings would have to be considered if raising out of relative clauses were allowed, for example in (4) An author who John has read every book by arrived",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "An Obvious Constraint?",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "In this example, if we did not assume the restriction against raising from relative clauses, the every.., noun phrase could in principle be assigned widest scope, but this would be blocked by the free- That is, the alleged constraint against raising from relatives, for which many counterexamples exist (Vanlehn, 1978) , blocks some derivations in which otherwise the free-variable constraint would be involved, specifically those associated to syntactic configurations of the form",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 303,
"end": 318,
"text": "(Vanlehn, 1978)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF31"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "An Obvious Constraint?",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "[Np,\" \u2022 .N[s--\u2022 \u2022 [Np\u00a2-\u2022 .X, \u2022 \u2022 .] \u2022 \u2022 .] \u2022 \u2022 \u2022 ]",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "An Obvious Constraint?",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "where Xi is a pronoun or trace coindexed with NPI and NPj is a quantified noun phrase. Since some of the most extensive Montague grammar fragments in the literature (Dowry et al., 1981; Cooper, 1983) do not cover the other major source of the problem, PP complements of noun phrases (replace S by PP in the configuration above), the question is effectively avoided in those treatments.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 165,
"end": 185,
"text": "(Dowry et al., 1981;",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 186,
"end": 199,
"text": "Cooper, 1983)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF3"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "An Obvious Constraint?",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "The main goal of this paper is to argue that the free-variable constraint is actually a consequence of basic semantic properties that hold in a semantic domain allowing functional application and abstraction, and are thus independent of a particular 10gical-form representation. As a corollary, I will also show that the constraint is better expressed as a restriction on the derivations of meanings of sentences from the meanings of their parts rather than a restriction on logical forms. The resulting system is related to the earlier system of conditional interpretation rules developed by Pollack and Pereira (1988) , but avoids that system's use of formal conditions on the order of assumption discharge.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 593,
"end": 619,
"text": "Pollack and Pereira (1988)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF22"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "An Obvious Constraint?",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "Work in combinatory logic and the A-calculus is concerned with the elucidation of the basic notion of functionality: how to construct functions, and how to apply functions to their arguments. There is a very large body of results in this area, of which I will need only a very small part.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Curry's Calculus of Functionality",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "\u2022 One of the simplest and most elegant accounts of functionality, originally introduced by Curry and Feys (1968) and further elaborated by other authors (Stenlund, 1972; Lambek, 1980; Howard, 1980) involves the use of a logical calculus to describe the types of valid functional objects. In a natural deduction format (Prawitz, 1965) , the calculns can be simply given by the two rules in Figure 1. The first rule states that the result of applying a function from objects of type A to objects of type B (a function of type A --* B) to an object of type A is an object of type B. The second rule states that if from an arbitrary object of type A it is possible to construct an object of type B, then one has a function from objects of type A to objects of type B. In this rule and all that follow, the parenthesized formula at the top indicates the discharge of an assumption introduced in the derivation of the formula below it. Precise definitions of assumption and assumption discharge are given below. The typing rules can be directly connected to the use of the A-calculus to represent functions by restating the rules as shown in Figure 2 . That is, if u has type A and v has type A ~ B then v(u) has type B, and if by assuming that z has type A we can show that u (possibly containing z) has type B, then the function represented by Ax.u has type A ~ B. [app] :u: Figure 2 , we need a precise notion of derivation, which is here adapted from the one given by Prawitz (1965) . A derivation is a tree with each node n labeled by a formula \u00a2(n) (the conclusion of the node) and by a set r(n) of formulas giving the =ss.mpiions of $(n). In addition, a derivation D satisfies the following conditions:",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 153,
"end": 169,
"text": "(Stenlund, 1972;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF27"
},
{
"start": 170,
"end": 183,
"text": "Lambek, 1980;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF14"
},
{
"start": 184,
"end": 197,
"text": "Howard, 1980)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF11"
},
{
"start": 318,
"end": 333,
"text": "(Prawitz, 1965)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF23"
},
{
"start": 1466,
"end": 1480,
"text": "Prawitz (1965)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF23"
}
],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 389,
"end": 395,
"text": "Figure",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 1136,
"end": 1144,
"text": "Figure 2",
"ref_id": "FIGREF3"
},
{
"start": 1371,
"end": 1379,
"text": "Figure 2",
"ref_id": "FIGREF3"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Curry's Calculus of Functionality",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "A v: A--* B [abs]: u: B v(u) : B Az,u : A--B",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Curry's Calculus of Functionality",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "i. For each leaf node n E D, either ~b(n) is an axiom, which in our case is a formula giving the type and interpretation of a lexical item, and then r(n) is empty, or @(n) is an assumption, in which case r(.) = {,(.)}",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Curry's Calculus of Functionality",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "ii. Each nonleaf node n corresponds either to an application of lapp], in which case it has two daughters m and m' with \u00a2(m) -u : A, Notice that condition (ii) above allows empty abstraction, that is, the application of rule labs] to some formula u : B even if z : A is not one of the assumptions of u : B. This is necessary for the Curry calculus, which describes all typed A-terms, including those with vacuous abstraction, such as the polymorphic K combinator Az.Ay.z : A ~ (B ~ A). However, in the present work, every abstraction needs to correspond to an actual functional dependency of the interpretation of a phrase on the interpretation of one of its constituents. Condition (ii) can be easily modified to block vacuous abstraction by requiring that z : A e r(m) for the application of the labs] rule to a derivation node m. 3",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Curry's Calculus of Functionality",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "The definition of derivation above can be generalized to arbitrary rules with n premises and one conclusion by defining a rule of inference as a n+lplace relation on pairs of formulas and assumption sets. ",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Curry's Calculus of Functionality",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "In one approach to the definition of allowable semantic combinations, the possible meanings of a phrase are exactly those whose type can be derived by the rules of a semantic calculus from axioms giving the types of the lexical items in the phrase. However, this is far too liberal in that 3Without this restriction to the abstraction rule, the types derivable using the rules in Figure 2 are exactly the consequences of the three axioms A -+ A, A --* (B --~ A) and (A -* (S -. C)) -* ((A -* S) -* (A -* C)), w~ch are the polymorphic types of the three combinators I, K and S that generate all the dosed typed A-calculus terms. Furthermore, if we interpret -* as implication, these theorems are exactly those of the pure implicational fragment of intuitlonlstic propositional logic (Curry and Feys, 1968; Stenlund, 1972; Anderson and Be]nap, 1975) . In contrast, with the restriction we have the weaker system of pure relevant implication R- (Prawitz, 1965; Anderson and Belnap, 1975) . the possible meanings of English phrases do not depend only on the types involved but also on the syntactic structure of the phrases. A possible way out is to encode the relevant syntactic constraints in a more elaborate and restrictive system of types and rules of inference. The prime example of a more constrained system is the Lambek calculus (Lambek, 1958) and its more recent elaborations within categorial grammar and semantics (van Benthem, 1986a; van Benthem, 1986b; Hendriks, 1987; Moortgat, 1988) . In particular, Hendriks (1987) proposes a system for quantifier raising, which however is too restrictive in its coverage to account for the phenomena of interest here.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 782,
"end": 804,
"text": "(Curry and Feys, 1968;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF4"
},
{
"start": 805,
"end": 820,
"text": "Stenlund, 1972;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF27"
},
{
"start": 821,
"end": 847,
"text": "Anderson and Be]nap, 1975)",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 942,
"end": 957,
"text": "(Prawitz, 1965;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF23"
},
{
"start": 958,
"end": 984,
"text": "Anderson and Belnap, 1975)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF0"
},
{
"start": 1334,
"end": 1348,
"text": "(Lambek, 1958)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF13"
},
{
"start": 1422,
"end": 1442,
"text": "(van Benthem, 1986a;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF28"
},
{
"start": 1443,
"end": 1462,
"text": "van Benthem, 1986b;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF29"
},
{
"start": 1463,
"end": 1478,
"text": "Hendriks, 1987;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF9"
},
{
"start": 1479,
"end": 1494,
"text": "Moortgat, 1988)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF18"
}
],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 380,
"end": 388,
"text": "Figure 2",
"ref_id": "FIGREF3"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Semantic Combinations and the Curry Calculus",
"sec_num": "3"
},
{
"text": "Instead of trying to construct a type system and type rules such that free application of the rules starting from appropriate lexical axioms will generate all and only the possible meanings of a phrase, I will instead take a more conservative route related to Montague grammar and early versions of GPSG (Gazdar, 1982) and use syntactic analyses to control semantic derivations.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 304,
"end": 318,
"text": "(Gazdar, 1982)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF7"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Semantic Combinations and the Curry Calculus",
"sec_num": "3"
},
{
"text": "First, a set of derived rules will be used in addition to the basic rules of application and abstraction. Semantically, the derived rules will add no new inferences, since they will merely codify inferences already allowed by the basic rules of the calculus of functionality. However, they provide the semantic counterparts of certain syntactic rules.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Semantic Combinations and the Curry Calculus",
"sec_num": "3"
},
{
"text": "Second, the use of some semantic rules must be licensed by a particular syntactic rule and the premises in the antecedent of the semantic rule must correspond in a rule-given way to the meanings of the constituents combined by the syntactic rule. As a simple example using a context-free syntax, the syntactic rule S -, NP VP might license the function application rule [app] with A the type of the meaning of the NP and A --* B the type of the meaning of the VP.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Semantic Combinations and the Curry Calculus",
"sec_num": "3"
},
{
"text": "Third, the domain of types will be enriched with a few new type constructors, in addition to the function type constructor --*. From a purely semantic point of view, these type constructors add no new types, but allow a convenient encoding of rule applicability constraints motivated by syntactic considerations. This enrichment of the formal universe of types for syntactic purposes is familiar from Montague grammar (Montague, 1973) , where it is used to distinguish different syntactic realizations of the same semantic type, and from categorial grammar (Lambek, 1958; Steedman, 1987) , where it is used to capture syntactic word-order constraints.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 418,
"end": 434,
"text": "(Montague, 1973)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF17"
},
{
"start": 557,
"end": 571,
"text": "(Lambek, 1958;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF13"
},
{
"start": 572,
"end": 587,
"text": "Steedman, 1987)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF26"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Semantic Combinations and the Curry Calculus",
"sec_num": "3"
},
{
"text": "Together, the above refinements allow the syn- , but many derivations allowed by these rules will be blocked.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Semantic Combinations and the Curry Calculus",
"sec_num": "3"
},
{
"text": "In the rules below, we will use the two basic types \u2022 for individuals and t for propositions, the function type constructor --* associating to the right, the formal type constructor qua,at(q), where q is a quantifier, that is, a value of type (e --~ t) -* t, and the two formal types pron for pronoun assumptions and trace for traces in relative clauses. For simplicity in examples, I will adopt a \"reverse Curried\" notation for the meanings of verbs, prepositions and relational nouns. For example, the meaning of the verb ~o love will be LOVe. : \u2022 ~ \u2022 ~ t, with z the lover and y the loved one in LOVE(y)(z). The assumptions corresponding to lexical items in a derivation will be appropriately labeled.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Derived Rules",
"sec_num": "4"
},
{
"text": "The two derived rules in Figure 3 deal with traces and the meaning of relative clauses. Rule [trace+] is licensed by the the occurrence of a trace in the syntax, and rule [trace-] by the construction of a relative clause from a sentence containing a trace. Clearly, if n : \u2022 --* t can be derived from some assumptions using these rules, then it can be derived using rule labs] instead. [lexlcal] CAR: e ~ 1;",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 93,
"end": 101,
"text": "[trace+]",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 25,
"end": 33,
"text": "Figure 3",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Trace Introduction and Abstraction",
"sec_num": "4.1"
},
{
"text": "[app] ~kz.CAR(Z)~OWN(z)(JOHN) \" e -'~ 1;",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Trace Introduction and Abstraction",
"sec_num": "4.1"
},
{
"text": "Figure 5: Using Derived Rules z) ~ (e --* t). Given appropriate syntactic licensing, Figure 5 shows the derivation of a meaning for car tha~ John o~#ns. Each nonleaf node in the derivation is labeled with the rule that was used to derive it, and leaf nodes are labeled according to their origin (lexical entries for words in the phrase or syntactic traces). The assumptions at each node are not given explicitly, but can be easily computed by looking in the subtree rooted at the node for undischarged assumptions.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 85,
"end": 93,
"text": "Figure 5",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Trace Introduction and Abstraction",
"sec_num": "4.1"
},
{
"text": "Another pair of rules, shown in Figure 4 , is responsible for introducing a pronoun and resolving it as bound anaphora. The pronoun resolution rule [pron-] applies only when B is trace or quant(q) for some quantifier q. Furthermore, the premise y : B does not belong to an immediate constituent of the phrase licensing the rule, but rather to some undischarged assumption of s : A, which will remain undischarged.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 32,
"end": 40,
"text": "Figure 4",
"ref_id": "FIGREF6"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Bound Anaphora Introduction and Elimination",
"sec_num": "4.2"
},
{
"text": "These rules deal only with the construction of the meaning of phrases containing bound anaphora. In a more detailed granunar, the licensing of both rules would be further restricted by linguistic constraints on coreference --for in-stance, those usually associated with c-command (Reinhart, 1983) , which seem to need access to syntactic information (Williams, 1986) . In particular, the rules as given do not by themselves enforce any constraints on the possible antecedents of reflexives.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 280,
"end": 296,
"text": "(Reinhart, 1983)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF24"
},
{
"start": 350,
"end": 366,
"text": "(Williams, 1986)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF32"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Bound Anaphora Introduction and Elimination",
"sec_num": "4.2"
},
{
"text": "The soundness of the rules can be seen by noting that the schematic derivation The example derivation in Figure 7 , which will be explianed in more detail later, shows the application of the anaphora rules in deriving an interpretation for example sentence (2).",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 105,
"end": 113,
"text": "Figure 7",
"ref_id": "FIGREF13"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Bound Anaphora Introduction and Elimination",
"sec_num": "4.2"
},
{
"text": "[quant+] : q: (e --* 10 --* t z: quant(q) Quantifier Raising The rules discussed earlier provide some of the auxiliary machinery required to illustrate the freevariable constraint. However, the main burden of enforcing the constraint falls on the rules responsible for quantifier raising, and therefore I will cover in somewhat greater detail the derivation of those rules from the basic rules of functionality.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Bound Anaphora Introduction and Elimination",
"sec_num": "4.2"
},
{
"text": "~g",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Bound Anaphora Introduction and Elimination",
"sec_num": "4.2"
},
{
"text": "I will follow here the standard view (Montague, 1973; Barwise and Cooper, 1981 ) that naturallanguage determiners have meanings of type (e --* t) --* (e --* 10 ---+ \u00a2. For example, the meaning of every might be Ar.As.Vz.r(z) ~ s(z), and the meaning of the noun phrase every man will be As.Vz.MAN(z) =~ s(z). To interpret the combination of a quantified noun phrase with the phrase containing it that forms its scope, we apply the meaning of the noun phrase to a property s derived from the meaning of the scope. The purpose of devices such as quantifying-in in Montague grammar, Cooper storage or quantifier raising in transformational grammar is to determine a scope for each noun phrase in a sentence. From a semantic point of view, the combination of a noun phrase with its scope, most directly expressed by Montague's quantifying-in rules, 4 corresponds to the following schematic derivation in the basic calculus (rules lapp] and labs] only): where the assumption z : \u2022 is introduced in the derivation at a position corresponding to the occurrence of the noun phrase with meaning q in the sentence. In Montague grammar, this correspondence is enforced by using a notion of syntactic combination that does not respect the syn-4I!1 gmaered, quantifyilMg-in has to apply not only to proposition-type scopes but ahto to property-type scopes (meAnings of common-noun phrases and verb-phrases). Extending the argument that foUows to those cases offers no difficulties.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 37,
"end": 53,
"text": "(Montague, 1973;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF17"
},
{
"start": 54,
"end": 78,
"text": "Barwise and Cooper, 1981",
"ref_id": "BIBREF2"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Bound Anaphora Introduction and Elimination",
"sec_num": "4.2"
},
{
"text": "tactic structure of sentences with quantified noun phrases. Cooper storage was in part developed to cure this deficiency, and the derived rules presented below address the same problem. Now, the free-variable constraint is involved in situations in which the quantifier q itself depends on assumptions that must be discharged. The relevant incomplete schematic derivation (again in terms of [app] and labs] only) is Given that the assumption y : \u2022 has not been discharged in the derivation of q : (e ---, ~) ---, t, that is, y : \u2022 is an undischarged assumption of q : (e ---, t) -* t, the question is how to complete the whole derivation. If the assumption were discharged before q had been combined with its scope, the result would be the semantic object Ay.q : \u2022 --, (e --, t) ---, t, which is of the wrong type to be combined by lapp] with the scope Az.s. Therefore, there is no choice but to discharge (b) after q is combined with its scope. Put in another way, q cannot be raised outside the scope of abstraction for the variable y occurring free in q,\" which is exactly what is going on in Example (4) ('An author who John has read every book by arrived'). A correct schematic derivation is then can be justified by translating it into an instance of the schematic derivation (5).",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 391,
"end": 396,
"text": "[app]",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Bound Anaphora Introduction and Elimination",
"sec_num": "4.2"
},
{
"text": "The situation relevant to the free-variable constraint arises when q in [quant+] depends on assumptions. It is straightforward to see that the constraint on a sound derivation according to the basic rules discussed earlier in this section turns now into the constraint that an assumption of the form z : quant(q) must be discharged before any of the assumptions on which q depends. Thus, the free-variable constraint is reduced to a constraint on derivations imposed by the basic theory of functionality, dispensing with a logical-form representation of the constraint. Figure 7 shows a derivation for the only possible scoping of sentence (2) when erery man is selected as the antecedent of his. To allow for the selected coreference, the pronoun assumption must be discharged before the quantifier assumption (a) for every man. Furthermore, the constraint on dependent assumptions requires that the quantifier assumption (c) for a friend of his be discharged before the pronoun assumption (b) on which it depends. It then follows that assumption (c) will be discharged before assumption (a), forcing wide scope for every man.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 570,
"end": 578,
"text": "Figure 7",
"ref_id": "FIGREF13"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Bound Anaphora Introduction and Elimination",
"sec_num": "4.2"
},
{
"text": "The approach to semantic interpretation outlined above avoids the need for manipulations of logical forms in deriving the possible meanings of quantified sentences. It also avoids the need for such devices as distinguished variables (Gazdar, 1982; Cooper, 1983) to deal with trace abstraction. Instead, specialized versions of the basic rule of functional abstraction are used. To my knowledge, the only other approaches to these problems that do not depend on formal operations on logical forms are those based on specialized logics of type change, usually restrictions of the Curry or Lambek systems (van Benthem, 1986a; Hendriks, 1987; Moortgat, 1988) . In those accounts, a phrase P with meaning p of type T is considered to have also alternative meaning t\u00a2 of type T', with the corresponding combination possibilities, if p' : T' follows from p : T in the chosen logic. The central problem in this approach is to design a calculus that will cover all the actual semantic alternatives (for instance, all the possible quantifier scopings) without introducing spurious interpretations. For quantifier raising, the system of Hendriks (1987) seems the most promising so far, but it is at present too restrictive to support raising from noun-phrase complements.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 233,
"end": 247,
"text": "(Gazdar, 1982;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF7"
},
{
"start": 248,
"end": 261,
"text": "Cooper, 1983)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF3"
},
{
"start": 587,
"end": 622,
"text": "Lambek systems (van Benthem, 1986a;",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 623,
"end": 638,
"text": "Hendriks, 1987;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF9"
},
{
"start": 639,
"end": 654,
"text": "Moortgat, 1988)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF18"
},
{
"start": 1126,
"end": 1141,
"text": "Hendriks (1987)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF9"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Bound Anaphora Introduction and Elimination",
"sec_num": "4.2"
},
{
"text": "An important question I have finessed here is that of the compositionality of the proposed semantic calculus. It is clear that the application of semantic rules is governed only by the existence of appropriate syntactic licensing and by the availability of premises of the appropriate types. In other words, no rule is sensitive to the form of any of the meanings appearing in its premises. However, there may be some doubt as to the status of the basic abstraction rule and those derived from it. After all, the use of A-abstraction in the consequent of those rules seems to imply the constraint that the abstracted object should formally be a variable. However, this is only superficially the case. I have used the formal operation of Aabstraction to represent functional abstraction in this paper, but functional abstraction itself is independent of its formal representation in the Acalculus. This can be shown either by using other notations for functions and abstraction, such as that of de Bruijn's (Barendregt, 1984; Huet, 1986) , or by expressing the semantic derivation rules in A-Prolog (Miller and Nadathur, 1986) following existing presentations of natural deduction systems (Felty and Miller, 1988) .",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 1006,
"end": 1024,
"text": "(Barendregt, 1984;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF1"
},
{
"start": 1025,
"end": 1036,
"text": "Huet, 1986)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF12"
},
{
"start": 1098,
"end": 1125,
"text": "(Miller and Nadathur, 1986)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF16"
},
{
"start": 1188,
"end": 1212,
"text": "(Felty and Miller, 1988)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF6"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Bound Anaphora Introduction and Elimination",
"sec_num": "4.2"
}
],
"back_matter": [
{
"text": "This research was supported by a contract with the Nippon Telephone and Telegraph Corp. and by a gift from the Systems Development Foundation as part of a coordinated research effort with the Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford University. I thank Mary Dalrympie and Stuart Shieber for their helpful discussions regarding this work.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Acknowledgments",
"sec_num": null
}
],
"bib_entries": {
"BIBREF0": {
"ref_id": "b0",
"title": "Entailment: the Logic of Relevance and Necessity",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Alan",
"middle": [
"Ross"
],
"last": "Anderson",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Nuel",
"middle": [
"D"
],
"last": "Belnap",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Jr",
"middle": [],
"last": "",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1975,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Alan Ross Anderson and Nuel D. Belnap, Jr. 1975. Entailment: the Logic of Relevance and Necessity, Volume L Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF1": {
"ref_id": "b1",
"title": "The Lambda Calculus: its Syntaz and Semantics",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Hank",
"middle": [
"P"
],
"last": "Barendregt",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1984,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Hank P. Barendregt. 1984. The Lambda Calcu- lus: its Syntaz and Semantics. North-Holland, Amsterdam, Holland.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF2": {
"ref_id": "b2",
"title": "Generalized quantifiers and natural language. Linguistics and Philosophy",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Ion",
"middle": [],
"last": "Barwise",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Robin",
"middle": [],
"last": "Cooper",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1981,
"venue": "",
"volume": "4",
"issue": "",
"pages": "159--219",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Ion Barwise and Robin Cooper. 1981. General- ized quantifiers and natural language. Linguis- tics and Philosophy, 4:159-219.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF3": {
"ref_id": "b3",
"title": "Quantification and Syntactic Theory. D. Reidel",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Robin",
"middle": [],
"last": "Cooper",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1983,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Robin Cooper. 1983. Quantification and Syntac- tic Theory. D. Reidel, Dordrecht, Netherlands.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF4": {
"ref_id": "b4",
"title": "Combinatory Logic, Volume L Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics",
"authors": [
{
"first": "B",
"middle": [],
"last": "Haskell",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Robert",
"middle": [],
"last": "Curry",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "",
"middle": [],
"last": "Feys",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1968,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Haskell B. Curry and Robert Feys. 1968. Com- binatory Logic, Volume L Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics. North- Holland, Amsterdam, Holland. Second print- ing.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF5": {
"ref_id": "b5",
"title": "Introduction to Montague Semantics",
"authors": [
{
"first": "David",
"middle": [
"R"
],
"last": "Dowty",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Robert",
"middle": [
"E"
],
"last": "Wall",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Stanley",
"middle": [],
"last": "Peters",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1981,
"venue": "Synthese Language Library. D. Reidel",
"volume": "11",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "David R. Dowty, Robert E. Wall, and Stanley Pe- ters. 1981. Introduction to Montague Seman- tics, Volume 11 of Synthese Language Library. D. Reidel, Dordrecht, Holland.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF6": {
"ref_id": "b6",
"title": "Specifying theorem provers in a higher-order logic programming language",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Amy",
"middle": [],
"last": "Felty",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Dale",
"middle": [],
"last": "Miller",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1988,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Amy Felty and Dale Miller. 1988. Specifying theo- rem provers in a higher-order logic programming language. Technical Report MS-CIS-88-12, De- partment of Computer and Information Science, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Penn- sylvania.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF7": {
"ref_id": "b7",
"title": "Phrase structure grammar",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Gerald",
"middle": [],
"last": "Gazdar",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1982,
"venue": "The Nature of Syntactic Representation",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "131--186",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Gerald Gazdar. 1982. Phrase structure grammar. In P. Jacobson and G.K. Pullum, editors, The Nature of Syntactic Representation, pages 131- 186. D. Reidel, Dordrecht, Holland.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF8": {
"ref_id": "b8",
"title": "The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases",
"authors": [
{
"first": "R",
"middle": [],
"last": "Irene",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "",
"middle": [],
"last": "Heim",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1982,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Irene R. Heim. 1982. The Semantics of Defi- nite and Indefinite Noun Phrases. Ph.D. thesis, Department of Linguistics, University of Mas- sachusetts, Amherst, Massachusetts (Septem- ber).",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF9": {
"ref_id": "b9",
"title": "Type change in semantics: the scope of quantification and coordination",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Herman",
"middle": [],
"last": "Hendriks",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1987,
"venue": "Catego.mes, Polymorphism and Unification",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "95--120",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Herman Hendriks. 1987. Type change in seman- tics: the scope of quantification and coordina- tion. In Ewan Klein and Johan van Benthem, editors, Catego.mes, Polymorphism and Unifica- tion, pages 95-120. Centre for Cognitive Sci- ence, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scot- land.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF10": {
"ref_id": "b10",
"title": "An algorithm for generating quantifier scopings",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Jerry",
"middle": [
"R"
],
"last": "Hobbs",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Stuart",
"middle": [
"M"
],
"last": "Shieber",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1987,
"venue": "Computational Linguistics",
"volume": "13",
"issue": "",
"pages": "47--63",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Jerry R. Hobbs and Stuart M. Shieber. 1987. An algorithm for generating quantifier scopings. Computational Linguistics, 13:47-63.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF11": {
"ref_id": "b11",
"title": "The formulae-as-types notion of construction",
"authors": [
{
"first": "W",
"middle": [
"A"
],
"last": "Howard",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1980,
"venue": "To H.B. Curry: Essays on Combinatory Logic, Lambda Calculus and Formalism",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "479--490",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "W.A. Howard. 1980. The formulae-as-types no- tion of construction. In J.P. Seldin and J.R. Hindley, editors, To H.B. Curry: Essays on Combinatory Logic, Lambda Calculus and For- malism, pages 479-490. Academic Press, Lon- don, England.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF12": {
"ref_id": "b12",
"title": "Formal structures for computation and deduction. First edition of the lecture notes of a course given in the Computer Science Department of Carnegie-Mellon University during the Spring of",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Gdrard",
"middle": [],
"last": "Huet",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1986,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Gdrard Huet. 1986. Formal structures for compu- tation and deduction. First edition of the lec- ture notes of a course given in the Computer Sci- ence Department of Carnegie-Mellon University during the Spring of 1986 (May).",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF13": {
"ref_id": "b13",
"title": "The mathematics of sentence structure",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Joachim",
"middle": [],
"last": "Lambek",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1958,
"venue": "American Mathematical Monthly",
"volume": "65",
"issue": "",
"pages": "154--170",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Joachim Lambek. 1958. The mathematics of sentence structure. American Mathematical Monthly, 65:154-170.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF14": {
"ref_id": "b14",
"title": "From A-calculus to cartesian closed categories",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Joachim",
"middle": [],
"last": "Lambek",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1980,
"venue": "To H.B. Curry: Essays on Combinatory Logic, Lambda Calculus and Forrealism",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "375--402",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Joachim Lambek. 1980. From A-calculus to carte- sian closed categories. In J.P. Seldin and J.R. Hindley, editors, To H.B. Curry: Essays on Combinatory Logic, Lambda Calculus and For- realism, pages 375-402. Academic Press, Lon- don, England.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF15": {
"ref_id": "b15",
"title": "Logical Form: its Struc. ture and Derivation",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Robert",
"middle": [],
"last": "",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1985,
"venue": "",
"volume": "12",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Robert May. 1985. Logical Form: its Struc. ture and Derivation, Volume 12 of Linguistic Inquiry Monographs. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF16": {
"ref_id": "b16",
"title": "Higher-order logic programming",
"authors": [
{
"first": "A",
"middle": [],
"last": "Dale",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Gopalan",
"middle": [],
"last": "Miller",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "",
"middle": [],
"last": "Nadathur",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1986,
"venue": "Third International Conference on Logic Programming",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Dale A. Miller and Gopalan Nadathur. 1986. Higher-order logic programming. In Ehud Shapiro, editor, Third International Confer- ence on Logic Programming, Berlin, Germany. Springer-Verlag.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF17": {
"ref_id": "b17",
"title": "The proper treatment of quantification in ordinary English",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Richard",
"middle": [],
"last": "Montague",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1973,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Richard Montague. 1973. The proper treatment of quantification in ordinary English. In Rich- mond H. Thomason, editor, Formal Philosphy. Yale University Press.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF18": {
"ref_id": "b18",
"title": "Categorial Investigations: Logical and Linguistic Aspects of the Lambek Calculus",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Michael",
"middle": [],
"last": "Moortgat",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1988,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Michael Moortgat. 1988. Categorial Investiga- tions: Logical and Linguistic Aspects of the Lambek Calculus. Ph.D. thesis, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Holland (October).",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF19": {
"ref_id": "b19",
"title": "Quantifier scoping in the SRI Core Language Engine",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Douglas",
"middle": [
"B"
],
"last": "Moran",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1988,
"venue": "$6th Annual \u2022 Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "33--47",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Douglas B. Moran. 1988. Quantifier scoping in the SRI Core Language Engine. In $6th Annual \u2022 Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 33-47, Morristown, New Jer- sey. Association for Computational Linguistics.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF20": {
"ref_id": "b20",
"title": "Quantification, pronouns and VP anaphora",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Barbara",
"middle": [],
"last": "Partee",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Emmon",
"middle": [],
"last": "Bach",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1984,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Barbara Partee and Emmon Bach. 1984. Quan- tification, pronouns and VP anaphora. In 160",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF21": {
"ref_id": "b21",
"title": "Truth, Interpretation and Information",
"authors": [
{
"first": "J",
"middle": [
"A G"
],
"last": "Groenendijk",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "T",
"middle": [
"M V"
],
"last": "Janssen",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "M",
"middle": [
"B J"
],
"last": "Stokhof",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": null,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "99--130",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "J.A.G. Groenendijk, T.M.V. Janssen, and M.B.J. Stokhof, editors, Truth, Interpretation and Information, pages 99-130. Forts, Dor- drecht, Holland.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF22": {
"ref_id": "b22",
"title": "An integrated framework for semantic and pragmatic interpretation",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Martha",
"middle": [
"E"
],
"last": "Pollack",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "C",
"middle": [
"N"
],
"last": "Fernando",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "",
"middle": [],
"last": "Pereira",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1988,
"venue": "P6th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "75--86",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Martha E. Pollack and Fernando C.N. Pereira. 1988. An integrated framework for semantic and pragmatic interpretation. In P6th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 75-86, Morristown, New Jer- sey. Association for Computational Linguistics.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF23": {
"ref_id": "b23",
"title": "Natural Deduction: A Proof-Theoretical Study",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Dug",
"middle": [],
"last": "Prawitz",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1965,
"venue": "Almqvist and Wiksell",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Dug Prawitz. 1965. Natural Deduction: A Proof- Theoretical Study. Almqvist and Wiksell, Upp- sala, Sweden.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF24": {
"ref_id": "b24",
"title": "Anaphora and Semantic Interpretation",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Tanya",
"middle": [],
"last": "Reinhart",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1983,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Tanya Reinhart. 1983. Anaphora and Semantic Interpretation. Croom Helm, London, England, corrected and revised printing, 1987 edition.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF25": {
"ref_id": "b25",
"title": "Modal Subordination, Anaphora and Distributivity",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Craige",
"middle": [],
"last": "Roberts",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1987,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Craige Roberts. 1987. Modal Subordination, Anaphora and Distributivity. Ph.D. thesis, De- partment of Linguistics, University of Mas- sachusetts, Amherst, Massachusetts (February).",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF26": {
"ref_id": "b26",
"title": "Combinatory grammars and parasitic gaps",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Mark",
"middle": [],
"last": "Steedman",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1987,
"venue": "Natural Language and Linguistic Theory",
"volume": "5",
"issue": "3",
"pages": "403--439",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Mark Steedman. 1987. Combinatory grammars and parasitic gaps. Natural Language and Lin- guistic Theory, 5(3):403-439.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF27": {
"ref_id": "b27",
"title": "Combinators, A-Terms and Proof Theory. D. Reidel",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Ssren",
"middle": [],
"last": "Stenlund",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1972,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "SSren Stenlund. 1972. Combinators, A-Terms and Proof Theory. D. Reidel, Dordrecht, Holland.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF28": {
"ref_id": "b28",
"title": "Categorial grammar and lambda calculus",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Johan",
"middle": [],
"last": "Van Benthem",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1986,
"venue": "Mathematical Logic and its Application",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "39--60",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Johan van Benthem. 1986a. Categorial grammar and lambda calculus. In D. Skordev, editor, Mathematical Logic and its Application, pages 39-60: Plenum Press, New York, New York.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF29": {
"ref_id": "b29",
"title": "Aspects of Quantification in Natural Language",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Johan",
"middle": [],
"last": "Van Benthem",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1985,
"venue": "Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy. D. Reidel",
"volume": "29",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Johan van Benthem. 1986b. Essays in Logical Semantics, Volume 29 of Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy. D. Reidel, Dordreeht, Holland. Jan van Eijek. 1985. Aspects of Quantification in Natural Language. Ph.D. thesis, University of Groningen, Groningen, Holland (February).",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF30": {
"ref_id": "b30",
"title": "Introduction to the Theory of Grammar, Volume 12 of Current Studies in Linguistics",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Edwin",
"middle": [],
"last": "Henk Van Riemedijk",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "",
"middle": [],
"last": "Williams",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1986,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Henk van Riemedijk and Edwin Williams. 1986. Introduction to the Theory of Grammar, Vol- ume 12 of Current Studies in Linguistics. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF31": {
"ref_id": "b31",
"title": "Determining the scope of English quantifiers",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Kurt",
"middle": [
"A"
],
"last": "Vanlehn",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1978,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Kurt A. Vanlehn. 1978. Determining the scope of English quantifiers. Master's thesis, M.I.T. (June).",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF32": {
"ref_id": "b32",
"title": "A reassignment of the functions of LF",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Edwin",
"middle": [],
"last": "Williams",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1986,
"venue": "Linguistic Inquiry",
"volume": "17",
"issue": "2",
"pages": "265--299",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Edwin Williams. 1986. A reassignment of the functions of LF. Linguistic Inquiry, 17(2):265- 299.",
"links": null
}
},
"ref_entries": {
"FIGREF1": {
"uris": null,
"num": null,
"type_str": "figure",
"text": "variable constraint as shown by the occurrence of b free as an argument of BOOK-BY in Vb.BOOK-BY(b, a) :~ (~a.AUTHOR(a)& HAS-READ(JOHN, b)&ARRIVED(a))"
},
"FIGREF2": {
"uris": null,
"num": null,
"type_str": "figure",
"text": "Figure 1: Curry Rules"
},
"FIGREF3": {
"uris": null,
"num": null,
"type_str": "figure",
"text": "Curry Rules for Type CheckingTo understand what inferences are possible with rules such as the ones in"
},
"FIGREF4": {
"uris": null,
"num": null,
"type_str": "figure",
"text": ". B. \u00f7(,) = v(u) : B and r(.) = r(m) u r(m'), or to an application of [abs], in which case n has a single daughter m, and ,(m) =-u : B. ~(,) = Ax.u : A -. B. and r(.) = rcm)-{~: A} If n is the root node of a derivation D, we say that D is a derivation of \u00a2(n) from the assumptions r(~)."
},
"FIGREF5": {
"uris": null,
"num": null,
"type_str": "figure",
"text": "For example, elements of the [app] relation would have the general form ((u : A, rl), (v : A B, r~), {v(u) : B, r, v r~)), while elements of the [abs] rule without vacuous abstraction would have the form ({u: B, r), (Ax.u : A --B, r -{x: A})) whenever z : A E r. This definition should be kept in mind when reading the derived rules of inference presented informally in the rest of the paper."
},
"FIGREF6": {
"uris": null,
"num": null,
"type_str": "figure",
"text": "Bound Anaphora Rules tax of language to restrict what potential semantic combinations are actually realized. Any derivations will be sound with respect to [app] and [abs]"
},
"FIGREF7": {
"uris": null,
"num": null,
"type_str": "figure",
"text": "For an example of use of [trace+] and [trace-], assume that the meaning of relative pronoun that is THAT ~ Ar.An.Az.n(x)&r(z) : (e --* t) --* (e--* [trace] y : 1;race I [trace+] Z/\" e [lexical] OWN : \u2022 --* e ~ 1: lapp] OWN(y) : e --* 1; [[exica[] JOHN : e [app] OWN(y)(JOHN): ~, / [trace--] )ty.OWN(y)(JOHS) I e --+ l; [[exical] THAT: (e --+ 1;) --+ (e --+ 1;) ---+ (e ---+ t) [app] An.,,\\z.n(z)~OWN(z)(JOHN): (e -'+ 1;) -'* (e ---* I;)"
},
"FIGREF9": {
"uris": null,
"num": null,
"type_str": "figure",
"text": "Figure 6: Quantifier Rules"
},
"FIGREF10": {
"uris": null,
"num": null,
"type_str": "figure",
"text": ""
},
"FIGREF12": {
"uris": null,
"num": null,
"type_str": "figure",
"text": "Ay.u : e--+ AIn the schematic derivations above, nothing ensures the association between the syntactic posi--] A(FRIEND-OF(h))(Af.SAW(f)(m)) [pron--] A (FRIEND-OF (Ira)) (~f.SAW (f)(rn)) I [quant--] EVERY(MAN)(Am.A (FRIEND-OF(m))(Af.SAW (f)(m)))Most interpretation types and the inference rule label on uses of [app] have been omitted for simplicity."
},
"FIGREF13": {
"uris": null,
"num": null,
"type_str": "figure",
"text": "Derivation Involving Anaphora and Quantification tion of the quantified noun phrase and the introduction of assumption (a). To do this, we need the the derived rules inFigure 6. Rule[qusnt-t-] is licensed by a quantified noun phrase. Rule [qusnt-] is not keyed to any particular syntactic construction, but instead may be applied whenever its premises are satisfied. It is clear that any use of[quant+] and[quant--]"
}
}
}
} |