Search

A novel logic-based framework for representing the syntax–semantics interface of natural language, applicable to a range of phenomena. In this book, Yusuke Kubota and Robert Levine propose a type-logical version of categorial grammar as a viable alternative model of natural language syntax and semantics. They show that this novel logic-based framework is applicable to a range of phenomena—especially in the domains of coordination and ellipsis—that have proven problematic for traditional approaches. The type-logical syntax the authors propose takes derivations of natural language sentences to be proofs in a particular kind of logic governing the way words and phrases are combined. This logic builds on and unifies two deductive systems from the tradition of categorial grammar; the resulting system, Hybrid Type-Logical Categorial Grammar (Hybrid TLCG) enables comprehensive approaches to coordination (gapping, dependent cluster coordination, and right-node raising) and ellipsis (VP ellipsis, pseudogapping, and extraction/ellipsis interaction). It captures a number of intricate patterns of interaction between scopal operators and seemingly incomplete constituents that are frequently found in these two empirical domains. Kubota and Levine show that the hybrid calculus underlying their framework incorporates key analytic ideas from competing approaches in the generative syntax literature to offer a unified and systematic treatment of data that have posed considerable difficulties for previous accounts. Their account demonstrates that logic is a powerful tool for analyzing the deeper principles underlying the syntax and semantics of natural language. The open access edition of this book was made possible by generous funding from Arcadia – a charitable fund of Lisbet Rausing and Peter Baldwin.

In this paper, we propose an analysis of pseudogapping in Hybrid Type-Logical Categorial Grammar (Hybrid TLCG; Kubota 2010,Kubota and Levine 2012). Pseudogapping poses a particularly challenging problem for previous analyses in both the transformational and nontransformational literature. The flexible notion of constituency countenanced in categorial grammar in general (including Hybrid TLCG) enables a simple analysis of pseudogapping that overcomes the problems for previous approaches. In addition, we show that Hybrid TLCG offers a useful platform for comparing different types of CG (and analytic ideas embodied in them) within a single framework with a linguist-friendly notation. In the context of an analysis of pseudogapping, this enables us to compare the adequacies of two types of treatments of discontinuous pseudogapping. We believe that this type of cross-framework comparison of different analytic ideas is useful for the purpose of testing the predictions of different types of analyses that can respectively be formulated in only one or the other of the more conservative types of CG.

This paper proposes an analysis of modal auxiliaries in English in Type-Logical Grammar. The proposed analysis captures the scopal interactions between different types of modal auxiliaries and negation by incorporating the key analytic idea of Iatridou and Zeijlstra [6], who classify English modal auxiliaries into PPI and NPI types. In order to technically implement this analysis, we build on Kubota and Levine’s [8, 10] treatment of modal auxiliaries as higher-order operators that take scope at the clausal level. The proposed extension of the Kubota/Levine analysis is shown to have several interesting consequences, including a formal derivability relation from the higher-order entry for auxiliaries to a lower-order VP/VP entry traditionally recognized in categorial grammar (CG) research. The systematic analysis of the scopal properties of auxiliaries and the somewhat more abstract meta-comparison between ‘transformational’ and ‘non-transformational’ analytic ideas that become possible in a type-logical setup highlight the value of taking a logical perspective on the syntax of natural language embodied in Type-Logical Grammar research.

National Institute for Japanese Language and Linguistics, Ochanomizu University, Ohio State University, The scope parallelism in the Geach sentence (Every boy loves, and every girl detests, some saxophonist) and the related parallel interpretation requirement in pronominal binding is a pervasive phenomenon found across different types of coordination and ellipsis phenomena. Previous accounts all resort to additional constraints of some sort that restrict the otherwise flexible syntax-semanticsinterface to avoid overgeneration. In this paper, we propose a novel approach to this long-standing problem. We show that, by taking a proof-theoretic perspective on natural language semantics and by viewing the ambiguity resolution for pronouns and indefinites as underspecification resolution thatinvokes extra proof search, a conceptually natural solution emerges for the problem of interpretive parallelism. The analysis is cast in Dependent Type Semantics, with Hybrid Type-Logical Categorial Grammar as the syntax-semantics interface backbone. For empirical illustration, we show how the proposed approach correctly accounts for the classical Geach paradigm and its pronominal variant.

Introduction: The Problem, and a Possible Solution Natural Language Data Linguists appear to be in an enviable position among scientific disciplines. The lifeblood of science is data, and unlike, say, glaciologists, who can only collect primary material for their research in remote and generally rather inhospitable parts of the planet, or particle physicists, who require access to massive, extremely expensive, and sometimes erratic machines – with demand for access to such machines far exceeding supply – linguists are literally surrounded by the kind of data that make up the target of their investigations. It's true that field linguists need informants at a considerable distance from where they themselves live, and experimental linguists often need laboratories with elaborate and sophisticated equipment. But for syntacticians – linguists who investigate the structure of sentences, a large fraction of whom (possibly a majority) study sentences in their own respective languages – matters are as convenient as they could possibly be. Syntacticians have intuitive access to all of the sentences made available by their own knowledge of their language, as well as the speech (and reactions) of their fellows in constant use around them, and ready-made corpora in the form of written materials and electronic records, many of which are available for searches based on word sequences (Google, for example, is a valuable source of data for both syntacticians and morphologists). Learning how to take advantage of this vast pool of readily available data is a major component of syntacticians’ training. In a sense, of course, the true data of syntax are not strings of words themselves, but judgments about the status of those strings of words. The syntactician's primary responsibility is to give an account of how it is that certain strings of words have the status of sentences, while other do not, and still others have a kind of shadowy intermediate status – not bad enough to be outright rubbish, but not good enough to pass completely unnoticed in conversation as utterly and tediously normal. For example, consider the status of the three word strings in (1): (1) a. I asked Robin to leave the room. b. I requested Robin to leave the room. c. I inquired (of) Robin to leave the room.

Categorial grammar is well-known for its elegant analysis of coordination enabled by the flexible notion of constituency it entertains. However, to date, no systematic study exists that examines whether this analysis has any obvious empirical advantage over alternative analyses of nonconstituent coordination available in phrase structure-based theories of syntax. This paper attempts precisely such a comparison. We compare the direct constituent coordination analysis of non-canonical coordinations (right-node raising, dependent cluster coordination and Gapping) in categorial grammar with an ellipsis-based analysis of the same phenomena in the recent HPSG literature. We provide a set of empirical evidence, consisting of cases in which non-canonical coordinations interact with scopal operators of various sorts, which systematically falsifies the predictions of the latter, ‘linearization-based’ ellipsis approach to coordination. We propose an alternative analysis in a variant of categorial grammar called Hybrid Type-Logical Categorial Grammar. The proposed framework builds on both the Lambek-inspired variants of categorial grammar and a more recent line of work modelling word order via a lambda calculus for the prosodic component. The flexible syntax–semantics interface of this framework straightforwardly captures the interactions between non-canonical coordinations and scopal expressions, demonstrating the broader empirical payoff of the direct constituent coordination analysis of non-canonical coordinations pioneered by Steedman (Language 61(3):523–568, 1985; Linguist Philos 13(2):207–263, 1990) and Dowty (Categorial grammars and natural language structures, 1988) hitherto not explicitly recognized in the literature.

This paper proposes a unified analysis of the ‘respective’ readings of plural and conjoined expressions, the internal readings of symmetrical predicates such as same and different, and the summative readings of expressions such as a total of $10000. These expressions pose significant challenges to compositional semantics, and have been studied extensively in the literature. However, almost all previous studies focus exclusively on one of these phenomena, and the close parallels and interactions that they exhibit have been mostly overlooked to date. We point out two key properties common to these phenomena: (i) they target all types of coordination, including nonconstituent coordination such as Right-Node Raising and Dependent Cluster Coordination; (ii) the three phenomena all exhibit multiple dependency, both by themselves and with respect to each other. These two parallels suggest that one and the same mechanism is at the core of their semantics. Building on this intuition, we propose a unified analysis of these phenomena, in which the meanings of expressions involving coordination are formally modelled as multisets, that is, sets that allow for duplicate occurrences of identical elements. The analysis is couched in Hybrid Type-Logical Categorial Grammar. The flexible syntax-semantics interface of this framework enables an analysis of ‘respective’ readings and related phenomena which, for the first time in the literature, yields a simple and principled solution for both the interactions with nonconstituent coordination and the multiple dependency noted above.

The scope anomaly observed in sentences like Mrs. J can’t live in Boston and Mr. J in LA (¬◊>∧) and No dog eats Whiskas or cat Alpo (¬∃>∨) is known to pose difficult challenges to many analyses of Gapping. We provide new arguments, based on both the basic syntactic patterns of Gapping and standard constituency tests, that the so-called ‘low VP coordination analysis’—the only extant analysis of Gapping in contemporary syntactic theories which accounts for this scope anomaly—is empirically untenable. We propose an explicit alternative analysis of Gapping in Hybrid Type-Logical Categorial Grammar, a variant of categorial grammar which builds on both the Lambek-inspired tradition and a more recent line of work modelling word order via a lambda calculus for the prosodic component. The flexible syntax-semantics interface of this framework enables us to characterize Gapping as an instance of like-category coordination, via a crucial use of the notion of hypothetical reasoning. This analysis of the basic syntax of Gapping is shown to interact with independently motivated analyses of scopal operators to immediately yield their apparently anomalous scopal properties in Gapping, offering, for the first time in the literature, a conceptually simple and empirically adequate solution for the notorious scope anomaly in Gapping.

The scope parallelism in the so-called Geach sentences in right-node raising (Every boy admires, and every girl detests, some saxophonist) poses a difficult challenge to many analyses of right-node raising, including ones formulated in the type-logical variants of categorial grammar (e.g. Kubota and Levine (2015)). In this paper, we first discuss Steedman’s (2012) solution to this problem in Combinatory Categorial Grammar, and point out some empirical problems for it. We then propose a novel analysis of the Geach problem within Hybrid Type-Logical Categorial Grammar (Kubota and Levine 2015), by incorporating Dependent Type Semantics (Bekki 2014) as the semantic component of the theory. The key solution for the puzzle consists in linking quantifiers to the argument positions that they correspond to via an anaphoric process. Independently motivated mechanisms for anaphora resolution in DTS then automatically predicts the scope parallelism in Geach sentences as a consequence of binding parallelism independently observed in right-node raising sentences.