scholarly journals Multiple movement dependencies and parasitic gaps

Author(s):  
Isaac Gould

Nissenbaum (2000) and Heck and Himmelreich (2017) (henceforth HH) are two prominent works that are noteworthy for focusing on the interaction of multiple movement dependencies (MMDs) and parasitic gaps (PGs). However, these two works consider disjoint and contrasting types of data paradigms. In this squib, I take both types of paradigms into consideration. In doing so, there are three inter-related questions that arise for our understanding of PGs (and in particular for PGs that involve certain MMDs). The first question asks what the correct descriptive generalizations about PG paradigms are. Going beyond such a generalization, we can also ask how to properly account for the data (and whether a unified analysis is possible). Finally, and more specifically, we can ask how to account for the compositional semantics of PGs, especially those involving MMDs.

Author(s):  
Michael Glanzberg

This chapter examines how concepts relate to lexical meanings. It focuses on how we can appeal to concepts to give specific, cognitively rich contents to lexical entries, while at the same time using standard methods of compositional semantics. This is a problem, as those methods assume lexical meanings provide extensions, while concepts are mental representations that have very different structure from an extension. The chapter proposes a way to solve this problem which is by casting concepts in a metasemantic role for certain expressions, notably verbs, but more also generally, with expressions that function as content-giving predicates in a sentence.


1990 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 141-170
Author(s):  
Andrea Maggiolo-Schettini ◽  
Józef Winkowski

Timed Petri nets and their behaviours are considered. A concept of a seminet is introduced. which generalizes the concept of a net, and suitable operations on seminets are defined, which allow constructing seminets from atoms corresponding to places and transitions. The behaviours of seminets are given in the form of so called configuration systems, a notion close to labelled event structures. Such behaviours can be combined with the aid of operations corresponding to those on seminets. In particular, the behaviour of a compound seminet can be obtained by combining the behaviours of components.


2014 ◽  
Vol 49 (9) ◽  
pp. 109-122
Author(s):  
Paul Downen ◽  
Zena M. Ariola

Author(s):  
Nicholas Welch ◽  
Marie-Louise Bouvier White

AbstractA widely accepted assumption in both the syntactic and semantic literature is that copulas lack semantic content. A consequent question is how to explain the existence in certain languages of two copular verbs that give rise to different interpretations. Such is the case in numerous languages of the Dene family (formerly known as Athapaskan). We explain this situation with the hypothesis that the copulas realize an underlying three-copula system differing in argument structure. Differences between the interpretations of copular clauses in these languages originate in the compositional semantics of these structures, not in any lexical semantic differences.This hypothesis successfully predicts the distributional differences between the surface forms of the Dene copulas, such as their compatibility with adjuncts of time and intentionality, interactions with accusative case, and semantic lifetime effects.


2011 ◽  
Vol 11 (4-5) ◽  
pp. 611-627
Author(s):  
ANTÓNIO PORTO

AbstractProlog's very useful expressive power is not captured by traditional logic programming semantics, due mainly to the cut and goal and clause order. Several alternative semantics have been put forward, exposing operational details of the computation state. We propose instead to redesign Prolog around structured alternatives to the cut and clauses, keeping the expressive power and computation model but with a compositional denotational semantics over much simpler states—just variable bindings. This considerably eases reasoning about programs, by programmers and tools such as a partial evaluator, with safe unfolding of calls through predicate definitions. Anif-then-elseacross clauses replaces most uses of the cut, but the cut's full power is achieved by anuntilconstruct. Disjunction, conjunction anduntil, along with unification, are the primitive goal types with a compositional semantics yielding sequences of variable-binding solutions. This extends to programs via the usual technique of a least fixpoint construction. A simple interpreter for Prolog in the alternative language, and a definition ofuntilin Prolog, establish the identical expressive power of the two languages. Many useful control constructs are derivable from the primitives, and the semantic framework illuminates the discussion of alternative ones. The formalisation rests on a term language with variable abstraction as in the λ-calculus. A clause is an abstraction on the call arguments, a continuation, and the local variables. It can be inclusive or exclusive, expressing a local case bound to a continuation by either a disjunction or anif-then-else. Clauses are open definitions, composed (and closed) with simple functional application β-reduction). This paves the way for a simple account of flexible module composition mechanisms.Cube, a concrete language with the exposed principles, has been implemented on top of a Prolog engine and successfully used to build large real-world applications.


2018 ◽  
Vol 18 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 390-405 ◽  
Author(s):  
PEDRO CABALAR ◽  
JORGE FANDINNO ◽  
LUIS FARIÑAS DEL CERRO ◽  
DAVID PEARCE

AbstractIn this paper, we propose a variant of Answer Set Programming (ASP) with evaluable functions that extends their application to sets of objects, something that allows a fully logical treatment of aggregates. Formally, we start from the syntax of First Order Logic with equality and the semantics of Quantified Equilibrium Logic with evaluable functions (${\rm QEL}^=_{\cal F}$). Then, we proceed to incorporate a new kind of logical term,intensional set(a construct commonly used to denote the set of objects characterised by a given formula), and to extend${\rm QEL}^=_{\cal F}$semantics for this new type of expression. In our extended approach, intensional sets can be arbitrarily used as predicate or function arguments or even nested inside other intensional sets, just as regular first-order logical terms. As a result, aggregates can be naturally formed by the application of some evaluable function (count,sum,maximum, etc) to a set of objects expressed as an intensional set. This approach has several advantages. First, while other semantics for aggregates depend on some syntactic transformation (either via a reduct or a formula translation), the${\rm QEL}^=_{\cal F}$interpretation treats them as regular evaluable functions, providing a compositional semantics and avoiding any kind of syntactic restriction. Second, aggregates can be explicitly defined now within the logical language by the simple addition of formulas that fix their meaning in terms of multiple applications of some (commutative and associative) binary operation. For instance, we can use recursive rules to definesumin terms of integer addition. Last, but not least, we prove that the semantics we obtain for aggregates coincides with the one defined by Gelfond and Zhang for the${\cal A}\mathit{log}$language, when we restrict to that syntactic fragment.


Author(s):  
Yixin Nie ◽  
Yicheng Wang ◽  
Mohit Bansal

Success in natural language inference (NLI) should require a model to understand both lexical and compositional semantics. However, through adversarial evaluation, we find that several state-of-the-art models with diverse architectures are over-relying on the former and fail to use the latter. Further, this compositionality unawareness is not reflected via standard evaluation on current datasets. We show that removing RNNs in existing models or shuffling input words during training does not induce large performance loss despite the explicit removal of compositional information. Therefore, we propose a compositionality-sensitivity testing setup that analyzes models on natural examples from existing datasets that cannot be solved via lexical features alone (i.e., on which a bag-of-words model gives a high probability to one wrong label), hence revealing the models’ actual compositionality awareness. We show that this setup not only highlights the limited compositional ability of current NLI models, but also differentiates model performance based on design, e.g., separating shallow bag-of-words models from deeper, linguistically-grounded tree-based models. Our evaluation setup is an important analysis tool: complementing currently existing adversarial and linguistically driven diagnostic evaluations, and exposing opportunities for future work on evaluating models’ compositional understanding.


Author(s):  
Zhiyuan Liu ◽  
Yankai Lin ◽  
Maosong Sun

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document