Abstract
Although ‘glue semantics’ is the most extensively developed theory of semantic composition for LFG, it is not very well integrated into the LFG projection architecture, due to the absence of a simple and well-explained correspondence between glue-proofs and f-structures. In this paper I will show that we can improve this situation with two steps: (1) Replace the current quantificational formulations of glue (either Girard’s system F, or first order linear logic) with strictly propositional linear logic (the quantifier, unit and exponential free version of either MILL or ILL, depending on whether or not tensors are used). (2) Reverse the direction of the standard σ-projection from f-structure to meaning, giving one going from the (atomic nodes of) the glue-proof to the f-structure, rather than from the f-structure to a ‘semantic projection’ which is itself somehow related to the glue-proof. As a side effect, the standard semantic projection of LFG glue semantics can be dispensed with. A result is that LFG sentence structures acquire a level composed of strictly binary trees, constructed out of nodes representing function application and lambda abstraction, with a significant resemblance to external and internal merge in the Minimalist Program. This increased resemblance between frameworks might assist in making useful comparisons.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Alsina A. (1996) The role of argument structure in grammar. CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA
Andrews A.D. (1982) The representation of case in modern Icelandic. In: Bresnan J. (Ed.) The mental representation of grammatical relations. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
Andrews A.D. (1990) Case-structures and control in modern Icelandic. In: Maling J., Zaenen A. (eds) Modern Icelandic syntax. Academic Press, San Diego, CA, pp 187–234
Andrews A.D. (1996) Semantic case-stacking and inside-out unification. Australian Journal of Linguistics 16(1): 1–55
Andrews A.D. (2007a) Generating the input in OT-LFG. In: Grimshaw J., Maling J., Manning C., Zaenen A. (eds) Architectures, rules, and preferences: A festschrift for Joan Bresnan. CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA, pp 319–340
Andrews A.D. (2007b) Glue semantics for clause-union complex predicates. In: Butt M., King T.H. (eds) The proceedings of the LFG ’07 conference. CSLI Publications, Stanford CA, pp 44–65
Andrews, A. D. (2007c). Glue semantics for clause-union complex predicates. In M. Butt & T. H. King (Eds.), The proceedings of the LFG ’07 conference (pp. 44–65). Stanford CA: CSLI Publications. Retrieved November 15, 2010, from http://cslipublications.stanford.edu/LFG/12/lfg07.html (accessed Feb 19, 2010).
Andrews A.D., Manning C.D. (1999) Complex predicates and information spreading in LFG. CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA
Asudeh A. (2001) Linking, optionality and ambiguity in Marathi. In: Sells P. (Ed.) Formal and empirical issues in optimality-theoretic syntax. CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA, pp 257–312
Asudeh, A. (2004). Resumption as resource management. Ph.D. thesis, Stanford University, Stanford, CA. Retrieved November 15, 2010, from http://http-server.carleton.ca/~asudeh/.
Asudeh A. (2005a) Control and resource sensitivity. Journal of Linguistics 41: 465–511
Asudeh A. (2005b) Relational nouns, pronouns and resumption. Linguistics and Philosophy 28: 375–446
Asudeh A. (2006) Direct compositionality and the architecture of LFG. In: Butt M., Dalrymple M., King T.H. (eds) Intelligent linguistic architectures: Variations on themes by Ronald M. Kaplan. CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA, pp 363–387
Asudeh, A., & Crouch, R. (2002). Derivational parallelism and ellipsis parallelism. In L. Mikkelsen & C. Potts (Eds.), WCCFL 21 proceedings (pp. 1–14). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press. Retrieved November 15, 2010, from http://http-server.carleton.ca/~asudeh/research/index.html.
Asudeh, A., & Toivonen, I. (2009). Copy-raising and perception. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory. Restrieved November 15, 2009, from http://http-server.carleton.ca/~asudeh/ (to appear).
Baez, J., & Stay, M. (2011). Physics, topology, logic and computation: A rosetta stone. In B. Coecke (Ed.), New structures for physics (pp. 95–168). Berlin: Springer. Retrieved November 17, 2010, from http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/rosetta.pdf.
Benton, N., Bierman, G. M., Hyland, J. M. E., & de Paiva, V. (1992). Term assignment for intuitionistic linear logic. Technical report. Retrieved November 15, 2010, from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.31.8666.
Benton, N., Biermann, G., de Paiva, V., & Hyland, M. (1993). A term calculus for intuitionistic linear logic. In M. Bezem & J. F. Groote (Eds.), Proceedings of the international conference on typed lambda calculi and applications, TLCA’93, Utrecht, The Netherlands, 16–18 March 1993 (Vol. 664, pp. 75–90). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Bresnan J.W. (2001) Lexical-functional syntax. Blackwell, Oxford
Crouch R.: (2006) Packed rewriting for mapping text to semantics and KR. In: Butt M., Dalrymple M., King T.H. (eds) Intelligent linguistic architectures: Variations on a theme by Ronald M. Kaplan. CSLI Publications, Stanford CA, pp 389–416
Crouch R., King T.H. (2006) Semantics via F-structure rewriting. In: Butt M., King T. (eds) Proceedings of LFG 2006. CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA
Crouch R., van Genabith J. (1999) Context change, underspecification, and the structure of glue language derivations. In: Dalrymple M. (Ed.) Syntax and semantics in lexical functional grammar: The resource-logic approach. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp 117–189
Culicover P.W., Jackendoff R.S. (2005) Simpler syntax. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Dalrymple, M. (Ed.) (1999) Syntax and semantics in lexical functional grammar: The resource-logic approach. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
Dalrymple M. (2001) Lexical functional grammar. Academic Press, San Diego, CA
Dalrymple, M., Gupta, V., Lamping, J., & Saraswat, V. (1999). Relating resource based semantics to categorial semantics (pp. 261–280). Earlier version published in Proceedings of the fifth meeting on the mathematics of language, Saarbucken (1995).
Dalrymple, M., Kaplan, R. M., Maxwell, J. T., & Zaenen, A. (Eds.). (1995). Formal issues in lexical-functional grammar. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. Retrieved November 15, 2010, from http://standish.stanford.edu/bin/detail?fileID=457314864.
Dalrymple, M., Lamping, J., Pereira, F., & Saraswat, V. (1997). Quantification, anaphora and intensionality. Logic, Language and Information, 6, 219–273. Appears with some modifications in Dalrymple (1999), pp. 39–90.
Dalrymple M.E. (1993) The syntax of anaphoric binding. The Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford, CA
de Groote, P. (1999). An algebraic correctness criterion for intuitionistic multiplicative proof-nets. Theoretical Computer Science, 224, 115–134. Retrieved November 15, 2010, from http://www.loria.fr/~degroote/bibliography.html.
de Groote, P., & Retor’e, C. (1996). On the semantic reading of proof-nets. In G. G.-J. Kruijff & D. Oehrle (Eds.), Formal grammar (pp. 57–70). Prague: FOLLI. http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/degroote96semantic.html.
Deal, A. R. (2007). Property-type objects and modal embedding. In A. Grnn (Ed.), Proceedings of SuB 12 (pp. 92–106). Oslo: Department of Literature, Area Studies and European Languages, University of Oslo. Retrieved November 17, 2010, from http://www.hf.uio.no/ilos/forskning/aktuelt/arrangementer/konferanser-seminarer/2007/SuB12/proceedings/.
Fry J. (1999) Proof nets and negative polarity licensing. In: Dalrymple M. (Ed.) Syntax and semantics in lexical functional grammar: The resource-logic approach. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 91–116
Girard, J.-Y., Lafont, Y., & Taylor, P. (1989). Proofs and types. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Retrieved November 15, 2010, from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.85.5358&rep=rep1&type=pdf.
Hahm, H.-J., & Wechsler, S. (2007). Untangling the Russian predicate agreement knot. In M. Butt & T. H. King (Eds.), The proceedings of the LFG ’07 conference (pp. 233–249). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. Retrieved 15 November, 2010, from http://cslipublications.stanford.edu/LFG/12/lfg07.html.
Hindley R. (1993) BCK and BCI logics, condensed detachment and the 2-property. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 34: 231–250
Hindley R., Meredith D. (1990) Principal type-schemes and condensed detachment. Journal of Symbolic Logic 55: 90–105
Jackendoff, R. S. (1972). Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. MIT Press. Extensive revision of 1969 MIT dissertation.
Jackendoff R.S. (2002) Foundations of language. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Jacobson P. (1999) Towards a variable-free semantics. Linguistics and Philosophy 22: 117–184
Jacobson P. (2002) The (dis)organization of the grammar: 25 years. Linguistics and Philosophy 25: 601–626
Jacobson P. (2005) Direct compositionality and variable-free semantics: The case of ‘principle b’ effects. In: Barker C., Jacobson P. (eds) Direct compositionality. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Jäger G. (2005) Anaphora and type logical grammar. Springer, Berlin
Jaśkowski S. (1963) Über Tautologien, in welchen keine Variable mehr als zweimal vorkommt. Zeitschrift für Mathematische Logik und Grundlagen der Mathematik 9: 219–228
Kaplan, R., & Bresnan, J. (1982). Lexical-functional grammar: A formal system for grammatical representation. In J. Bresnan (Ed.), The mental representation of grammatical relations. Also in Dalrymple et al. (Eds.), 1995 Formal issus in lexical-functional grammar. CSLI Publications; page number references to 1982 version.
Kaplan, R. M. (1987). Three seductions of computational psycholinguistics. In P. Whitelock, M. M.Wood, H. Somers, R. Johnson, & P. Bennet (Eds.), Linguistics and computer applications. Academic Press, pp. 149–188. (Reprinted from Formal issues in lexical-functional grammar, pp. 337–367, by Dalrymple et al., 1995, Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.)
Kaplan R.M. (1995) The formal architecture of LFG. In: Dalrymple M., Kaplan R.M., Maxwell J.T., Zaenen A. (eds) Formal issues in lexical-functional grammar. CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA, pp 7–27
King T.H., Dalrymple M. (2004) Determiner agreement and noun conjunction. Journal of Linguistics 40: 69–104
Kokkonidis M. (2005) Why glue a donkey to an F-structure when you can constrain and bind it instead. In: Butt M., King T. (eds) Proceedings of LFG 2005. CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA
Kokkonidis M. (2008) First order glue. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 17: 43–68
Kroeger, P. (1993). Phrase-structure and grammatical relations in Tagalog. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. Originally Stanford University Ph.D. Dissertation, 1991.
Kuhn J. (2003) Optimality-theoretic syntax—a declarative approach. CSLI Publications, Stanford CA
Lamarche, F. (1994). Proof nets for intuitionistic linear logic 1: Essential nets. Technical Report, Imperial College, London.
Lambek J. (2008) From word to sentence. Polimetrica, Milan
Lev, I. (2007). Packed computation of exact meaning representations using glue semantics (with automatic handling of structural ambiguities and advanced natural language constructions). Ph.D. thesis, Stanford University. Retrieved November 15, 2010, from http://sites.google.com/site/pulcproject/material.
Mackie I., Rom’an L., Abramsky S. (1993) An internal language for autonomous categories. Applied Categorical Structures 1: 311–343
Manning, C. D. (1996). Ergativity: Argument structure and grammatical relations. Stanford CA: CSLI Publications. Originally Stanford Ph.D. Dissertation, 1994.
Marantz A. (1984) On the nature of grammatical relations. MIT Press, Cambridge MA
Moot, R. (2002). Proof-nets for linguistic analysis. Ph.D. thesis, University of Utecht. Retrieved November 15, 2010, from http://www.labri.fr/perso/moot/ and http://igitur-archive.library.uu.nl/dissertations/1980438/full.pdf.
Morrill G. (2005) Geometry of language and linguistic circuitry. In: Casadio C., Scott P.J., Seely R. (eds) Language and grammar. CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA, pp 237–264
Nordlinger R. (1998) Constructive case. CSLI Publications, Stanford CA
Nordlinger R., Sadler L. (2004) Tense beyond the verb: Encoding clausal tense/aspect/mood on nominal dependents. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 22: 597–641
Partee, B. H. (2006). Do we need two basic types. In H.-M. Gaertner, R. Eckardt, R. Musan, & B. Stiebels (Eds.), Puzzles for Manfred Krifka. Berlin.
Perrier G. (1999) Labelled proof-nets for the syntax and semantics of natural languages. L.G. of the IGPL 7: 629–655
Prior A.N. (1963) Formal logic. Clarendon, Oxford
Simpson J., Bresnan J. (1983) Control and obviation in Warlpiri. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 1: 49–64
Simpson, J. H. (1983). Aspects of Warlpiri morphology and syntax. Ph.D. thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Mostly superseded by Simpson (1991) Warlpiri morpho-syntax. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
Simpson J.H. (1991) Warlpiri morpho-syntax. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht
Tatsuta M. (1993) Uniqueness of normal proofs of minimal formulas. Journal of Symbolic Logic 58: 789–799
Troelstra A.S. (1992) Lectures on linear logic. CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA
Wechsler, S. (2004). Number as person. In O. Bonami & P. C. Hofherr (Eds.), Empirical issues in syntax and semantics 5 (on-line proceedings of the fifth syntax and semantics conference in Paris) (pp. 255–274). Retrieved November 15, 2010, from http://www.cssp.cnrs.fr/eiss5/ and http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~wechsler/NumberAsPerson.pdf.
Wechsler S., Zlatić L. (2003) The many faces of agreement. CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Andrews, A.D. Propositional glue and the projection architecture of LFG. Linguist and Philos 33, 141–170 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-010-9079-9
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-010-9079-9