Journal of Logic, Language and Information

, Volume 16, Issue 2, pp 217–220 | Cite as

Book Review

Book Review

This is a good book. Its main message is that a particular approach to natural language called type-logical grammar can, in-principle, be equipped with a learning theory. In this review, I first identify what type-logical grammar is, then outline what the learning theory is. Then I try to articulate why this message is important for the logical, linguistic and information-theoretic parts of cognitive science. Overall, I think the book’s main message is significant enough to warrant patience with its scientific limitations.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Ajdukiewicz K. (1935). Die syntaktische konnexität. Studia Philosophica 1, 1–27Google Scholar
  2. Buszkowski W., Penn G. (1990). Categorial grammar determined from linguistic data by unification. Studia Logica 49, 431–454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Carpenter, B. (1996). Type-Logical Semantics. MIT Press.Google Scholar
  4. Church A. (1940). A formulation of the simple theory of types. Journal of Symbolic Logic 5(2):56–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Curry, H. B., & Feys, R. (1958). Combinatory logic. North-Holland.Google Scholar
  6. Foret, A., & Nir, Y. L. (2002). Lambek rigid grammars are not learnable from strings. In Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING 2002).Google Scholar
  7. Kanazawa, M. (1998). Learnable Classes of Categorial Grammars. CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
  8. Lambek J. (1958). The mathematics of sentence structure. American Mathematical Monthly 65, 154–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Lambek, J. (1961). On the calculus of syntactic types. In R. Jakobson (Ed.), Structure of Language and its Mathematical Aspects. American Mathematical Society (pp. 166–178).Google Scholar
  10. Moortgat, M. (1988). Categorial Investigations: Logical & Linguistic Aspects of the Lambek Calculus. Foris.Google Scholar
  11. Morrill, G. V. (1994). Type Logical Grammar: categorial logic of signs. Kluwer.Google Scholar
  12. Pinker, S. (1984). Language Learnability and Language Development. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Restall, G. (2000). An introduction to substructural logics. Routledge.Google Scholar
  14. Russell B. (1908). Mathematical logic as based on the theory of types. American Journal of Mathematics 30, 222–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Tellier, I. (1998). Meaning helps learning syntax. In Proceedings of the 4th International Colloquium on Grammatical Inference pp 25–36.Google Scholar
  16. Tesar, B., & Smolensky, P. (2000). Learnability in Optimality Theory. MIT Press.Google Scholar
  17. Troelstra, A. S., & Schwichtenberg, H. (1996). Basic proof theory. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  18. van Benthem, J. (1991). Language in Action. North-Holland.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Linguistics and Germanic, Slavic, Asian and African LanguagesMichigan State UniversityEast LansingUSA
  2. 2.Department of Computer Science and EngineeringMichigan State UniversityEast LansingUSA

Personalised recommendations