scholarly journals Applicative Abstract Categorial Grammar

10.29007/s2m4 ◽  
2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Oleg Kiselyov
Keyword(s):  
Functional Programming ◽  
Dynamic Logic ◽  
Semantic Theory ◽  
Categorial Grammar ◽  
Semantic Mapping ◽  
Truth Conditions ◽  
Categorial Grammars ◽  
Readable Form ◽  
Empirical Tests ◽  
Lexical Items

We present the grammar/semantic formalism of Applicative AbstractCategorial Grammar (AACG), based on the recent techniques fromfunctional programming: applicative functors, staged languages andtyped final language embeddings. AACG is a generalization ofAbstract Categorial Grammars (ACG), retaining the benefits of ACG as agrammar formalism and making it possible and convenient to express avariety of semantic theories.We use the AACG formalism to uniformly formulate Potts' analyses ofexpressives, the dynamic-logic account of anaphora, and thecontinuation tower treatment of quantifier strength, quantifierambiguity and scope islands. Carrying out these analyses in ACGrequired compromises and the ballooning of parsing complexity, or wasnot possible at all. The AACG formalism brings modularity, which comesfrom the compositionality of applicative functors, in contrast tomonads, and the extensibility of the typed final embedding. Theseparately developed analyses of expressives and QNP are used as theyare to compute truth conditions of sentences with both these features.AACG is implemented as a `semantic calculator', which is the ordinaryHaskell interpreter. The calculator lets us interactively writegrammar derivations in a linguist-readable form and see their yields,inferred types and computed truth conditions. We easily extendfragments with more lexical items and operators, and experiment withdifferent semantic-mapping assemblies. The mechanization lets asemanticist test more and more complex examples, making empirical testsof a semantic theory more extensive, organized and systematic.

Self-referring in Korean, with reference to Korean first-person markers

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hye-Kyung Lee
Keyword(s):  
Social Role ◽  
Semantic Theory ◽  
Public Image ◽  
First Person ◽  
Grammatical Category ◽  
Primary Function ◽  
Person Reference ◽  
Lexical Items ◽  
Dictionary Definitions

Lee’s chapter provides a corpus-based analysis of Korean first-person markers by examining the semantic and pragmatic features emerging from their dictionary definitions and their usages in discourse. Specifically, it is demonstrated that the use of the grammatical category of a pronoun does not quite fit the Korean data, because the exceptionally large number of the lexical items are highly specialized in their use. While the first-person markers have the primary function of referring to the speaker, self-referring via first-person markers in Korean is mediated by the speaker’s awareness of his perceived social role or public image, which is expected to conform to honorification norms. The author also argues that the situation with first-person reference in Korean supports the view that the indexical/non-indexical distinction standardly adopted in semantic theory ought to be reconsidered.

Categorial Grammar

Linguistics ◽  
2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Glyn Morrill
Keyword(s):  
Natural Language ◽  
Language Processing ◽  
Modus Ponens ◽  
Categorial Grammar ◽  
Substructural Logic ◽  
Grammatical Structure ◽  
Rewriting Systems ◽  
Categorial Grammars ◽  
History Of ◽  
Grammar Formalisms

The term “categorial grammar” refers to a variety of approaches to syntax and semantics in which expressions are categorized by recursively defined types and in which grammatical structure is the projection of the properties of the lexical types of words. In the earliest forms of categorical grammar types are functional/implicational and interact by the logical rule of Modus Ponens. In categorial grammar there are two traditions: the logical tradition that grew out of the work of Joachim Lambek, and the combinatory tradition associated with the work of Mark Steedman. The logical approach employs methods from mathematical logic and situates categorial grammars in the context of substructural logic. The combinatory approach emphasizes practical applicability to natural language processing and situates categorial grammars within extended rewriting systems. The logical tradition interprets the history of categorial grammar as comprising evolution and generalization of basic functional/implicational types into a rich categorial logic suited to the characterization of the syntax and semantics of natural language which is at once logical, formal, computational, and mathematical, reaching a level of formal explicitness not achieved in other grammar formalisms. This is the interpretation of the field that is being made in this article. This research has been partially supported by MINICO project TIN2017–89244-R. Thanks to Stepan Kuznetsov, Oriol Valentín and Sylvain Salvati for comments and suggestions. All errors and shortcomings are the author’s own.

Locating meanings

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul M. Pietroski
Keyword(s):  
Linguistic Meaning ◽  
Natural Phenomenon ◽  
Truth Conditions ◽  
Lexical Items

This chapter characterizes meanings in terms of certain generative procedures. We can begin to locate the natural phenomenon of linguistic meaning by focusing on (Chomsky-style) examples of constrained homophony. Two or more lexical items can connect distinct meanings with the same pronunciation; and phrases like ‘ready to please’ are similarly homophonous. But as ‘eager to please’ and ‘easy to please’ illustrate, phrasal homophony is constrained. Such facts provide important clues about what meanings are, and how they can(not) be combined. The details provide reasons for identifying the languages that children naturally acquire with biologically implemented procedures, and not sets of expressions. There are English procedures; but English is not a thing that speakers share and use to communicate. In this context, some initial reasons are given for doubting that the relevant procedures generate sentences that have truth conditions.

Meaning versus truth

Dialogue ◽  
1978 ◽  
Vol 17 (3) ◽  
pp. 401-430 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charles Travis
Keyword(s):  
A Priori ◽  
Semantic Theory ◽  
Truth Conditions

As With other topics about which philosophers theorize, there are two approaches to semantics. One might begin by stipulating what the content of a semantic theory of a language is to be, that is, what the theory is to say in describing what each expression in the language means. Alternatively, one can begin by trying to formulate semantic theories with adequate descriptive apparatus – vocabulary and description forming rules – for marking the differences between one thing and another that an expression of some language(s) may mean, and then, with theories in hand, see what content or significance can plausibly be assigned to the vocabulary and descriptions which the theories yield. Adherents of the second approach are apt to regard the first approach, with suspicion, as a piece of a priori theorizing about what it comes to for an expression to mean what it does, hence about what properties speakers of the relevant language are prepared to recognize in it. But there is little doubt that the first approach has been the most popular one with philosophers as a whole, nor that the most popular forms of stipulation about content centre on the idea of assigning ‘truth conditions’ to sentences.

Semantics

2019 ◽  
pp. 46-77
Author(s):  
Bryan R. Weaver ◽  
Kevin Scharp
Keyword(s):  
Formal Semantics ◽  
Semantic Theory ◽  
Truth Conditions ◽  
Pragmatic Theory ◽  
Semantic Framework ◽  
Question Under Discussion ◽  
Neutral Agent

Chapter 3 presents a semantic theory for reasons locutions. The semantic theory pairs a Kaplanian semantic framework with Craige Roberts’s question under discussion (QUD) pragmatic theory. The result is QUD Reasons Contextualism, which specifies eight distinct kinds of contexts of utterance for reasons locutions and the truth conditions for each one. The chapter then explains how each of the six reasons distinctions surveyed in Chapter 1 is related to the semantics for reasons locutions. In particular, the chapter shows that the agent neutral/agent relative distinction is a presemantic distinction, the normative/motivating/explanatory, objective/subjective, and permissive/obligatory distinctions are content distinctions, the adaptive/evaluative/practical and internal/external distinctions are domain distinctions, and the contributory/conclusive/sufficient distinction is a nonsemantic distinction. In addition, the chapter presents an extended example and an analogy with love locutions to illustrate the results. Finally, the chapter suggests a formal semantics for reasons locutions in the style of Kratzer’s semantics for modals.

Conjoining Meanings

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul M. Pietroski
Keyword(s):  
Lexical Item ◽  
Truth Conditions ◽  
Semantic Composition ◽  
Lexical Items

Humans naturally acquire languages that connect meanings with pronunciations. These distinctive languages are described here as generative procedures that respect substantive constraints. Children acquire meaningful lexical items that can be combined, in certain ways, to form meaningful complex expressions. This raises questions about what meanings are, how they can be combined, and what kinds of meanings lexical items can have. This book argues that meanings are neither concepts nor extensions, and sentences do not have truth conditions. Rather, meanings are composable instructions for how to access and assemble concepts of a special sort. More specifically, phrasal meanings are instructions for how to build monadic concepts (a.k.a. mental predicates) that are massively conjunctive, while lexical meanings are instructions for how to fetch concepts that are monadic or dyadic. This allows for polysemy, since a lexical item can be linked to an address that is shared by a family of fetchable concepts. But the posited combinatorial operations are limited and limiting. They impose severe restrictions on which concepts can be fetched for purposes of semantic composition. Correspondingly, the argument here is that in lexicalization, available representations are often used to introduce concepts that can be combined via the relevant operations.

A Categorial Approach to Latin Syntax

1990 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Claudia Casadio
Keyword(s):  
Word Order ◽  
Categorial Grammar ◽  
Syntactic Features ◽  
Case System ◽  
Lexical Items

AbstractThis work investigates the effects of the application of a categorial grammar to Latin syntax. Due to the wide variety of constructions admitted in Latin, the analysis will focus on those properties of lexical items which more directly and intuitively offer the opportunity of evaluating the salient aspects and the effectiveness of the categorial strategy. Subcategorization properties of lexical items and certain word order patterns are considered in this perspective, and a picture of the case system is suggested, representing the traditional cases in terms of the categorial notation implemented by an appropriate system of syntactic features.

scholarly journals Complex predicates: Structure, potential structure and underspecification

2019 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Stefan Müller
Keyword(s):  
Categorial Grammar ◽  
Complex Predicates ◽  
Actual Structure ◽  
Light Verbs ◽  
Light Verb ◽  
Potential Structure ◽  
Lexical Items

This paper compares a recent TAG-based analysis of complex predicates in Hindi/Urdu with its HPSG analog. It points out that TAG combines actual structure while HPSG (and Categorial Grammar and other valence-based frameworks) specify valence of lexical items and hence potential structure. This makes it possible to have light verbs decide which arguments of embedded heads get realized, something that is not possible in TAG. TAG has to retreat to disjunctions instead. While this allows straight-forward analyses of active/passive alternations based on the light verb in valence-based frameworks, such an option does not exist for TAG and it has to be assumed that preverbs come with different sets of arguments.

The Combinatory Morphemic Lexicon

2002 ◽  
Vol 28 (2) ◽  
pp. 145-186 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cem Bozsahin
Keyword(s):  
Expressive Power ◽  
Categorial Grammar ◽  
Inflectional Morphology ◽  
Computational System ◽  
Combinatory Categorial Grammar ◽  
Lexical Items ◽  
Semantic Scope

Grammars that expect words from the lexicon may be at odds with the transparent projection of syntactic and semantic scope relations of smaller units. We propose a morphosyntactic framework based on Combinatory Categorial Grammar that provides flexible constituency, flexible category consistency, and lexical projection of morphosyntactic properties and attachment to grammar in order to establish a morphemic grammar-lexicon. These mechanisms provide enough expressive power in the lexicon to formulate semantically transparent specifications without the necessity to confine structure forming to words and phrases. For instance, bound morphemes as lexical items can have phrasal scope or word scope, independent of their attachment characteristics but consistent with their semantics. The controls can be attuned in the lexicon to language-particular properties. The result is a transparent interface of inflectional morphology, syntax, and semantics. We present a computational system and show the application of the framework to English and Turkish.

Lexical Comprehension in Young Children With Developmental Delays

1994 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 79-88 ◽  
Author(s):  
Theresa A. Kouri
Keyword(s):  
Young Children ◽  
Developmental Delays ◽  
Normal Development ◽  
Clinical Applications ◽  
Group Status ◽  
Novel Object ◽  
Related Information ◽  
Comprehension Skills ◽  
Lexical Items ◽  
Lexical Concepts

Lexical comprehension skills were examined in 20 young children (aged 28–45 months) with developmental delays (DD) and 20 children (aged 19–34 months) with normal development (ND). Each was assigned to either a story-like script condition or a simple ostensive labeling condition in which the names of three novel object and action items were presented over two experimental sessions. During the experimental sessions, receptive knowledge of the lexical items was assessed through a series of target and generalization probes. Results indicated that all children, irrespective of group status, acquired more lexical concepts in the ostensive labeling condition than in the story narrative condition. Overall, both groups acquired more object than action words, although subjects with ND comprehended more action words than subjects with DD. More target than generalization items were also comprehended by both groups. It is concluded that young children’s comprehension of new lexical concepts is facilitated more by a context in which simple ostensive labels accompany the presentation of specific objects and actions than one in which objects and actions are surrounded by thematic and event-related information. Various clinical applications focusing on the lexical training of young children with DD are discussed.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document