Journal of Logic, Language and Information

, Volume 17, Issue 1, pp 43–68

First-Order Glue

Original Article

Abstract

Glue has evolved significantly during the past decade. Although the recent move to type-theoretic notation was a step in the right direction, basing the current Glue system on System F (second-order λ-calculus) was an unfortunate choice. An extension to two sorts and ad hoc restrictions were necessary to avoid inappropriate composition of meanings. As a result, the current system is unnecessarily complicated. A first-order Glue system is hereby proposed as its replacement. This new system is not only simpler and more elegant, as it captures the exact requirements for Glue-style compositionality without ad hoc improvisations, but it also turns out to be more powerful than the current two-sorted (pseudo-) second-order system. First-order Glue supports all existing Glue analyses as well as more elegant alternatives. It also supports new, more demanding analyses.

Keywords

Glue Compositional semantics Syntax-semantics interface First-Order Linear Logic Typing systems 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Andrews, A. D. (2004). Glue logic versus spreading architecture in LFG. In C. Mostovsky (Ed.), Proceedings of the 2003 Conference of the Australian Linguistics Society. Newcastle, Australia.Google Scholar
  2. Asudeh, A., & Crouch, R. (2001). Glue semantics: A general theory of meaning composition. Talk given at Stanford Semantics Fest 2, March 16, 2001. http://csli.publications.stanford.edu/LFG/7/ lfg02asudehcrouch.pdfGoogle Scholar
  3. Asudeh, A., & Crouch, R. (2002). Glue semantics for HPSG. In F. van Eynde, L. Hellan, & D. Beermann (Eds.), Proceedings of the 8th International HPSG Conference. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
  4. Crouch, R., & van Genabith, J. (1999). Context change, underspecification, and the structure of Glue language derivations. In M. Dalrymple (Ed.), Semantics and syntax in Lexical Functional Grammar: The resource logic approach, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  5. Dalrymple M. (Ed.). (1999). Semantics and syntax in Lexical Functional Grammar: The resource logic approach. Cambridge, MA, MIT PressGoogle Scholar
  6. Dalrymple, M. (2001). Lexical Functional Grammar, No. 42 in Syntax and Semantics Series. NewYork: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  7. Dalrymple, M., Gupta, V., Pereira, F. C., & Saraswat, V. (1997a), Relating resource-based semantics to categorial semantics. In Proceedings of the Fifth Meeting on Mathematics of Language (MOL5). Saarbrücken, Germany: Schloss Dagstuhl. An updated version was printed in M. Dalrymple (Ed.), Semantics and syntax in Lexical Functional Grammar: The resource logic approach. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  8. Dalrymple, M., Lamping, J., Pereira F. C., & Saraswat, V. (1995a). A deductive account of quantification in LFG. In K. Makoto, C. J. Pinón, & H. de Swart (Eds.), Quantifiers, deduction and context. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar
  9. Dalrymple, M., Lamping, J., Pereira, F. C., & Saraswat, V. (1995b). Linear logic for meaning assembly. In S. Manandha, P. G. Lops, & W. Nutt (Eds.), Proceedings of Computational Logic for Natural Language Processing. Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press.Google Scholar
  10. Dalrymple, M., Lamping, J., Pereira, F. C., & Saraswat, V. (1997b). Quantifiers, anaphora, and intensionality. Journal of Logic, Language and Information, 6(3), 219–273. Reprinted in M. Dalrymple (Ed.), Semantics and syntax in Lexical Functional Grammar: The resource logic approach. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  11. Dalrymple, M., Lamping, J., Pereira, F. C., & Saraswat, V. (1999). Quantification, anaphora, and intensionality. In M. Dalrymple (Ed.), Semantics and syntax in Lexical Functional Grammar: The resource logic approach. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  12. Dalrymple, M., Lamping, J., & Saraswat, V. (1993). LFG semantics via constraints. In Proceedings of the sixth meeting of the european ACL (pp. 97–105). University of Utrecht.Google Scholar
  13. Frank, A., & van Genabith, J. (2001). LL-based semantics construction for LTAG- and what it teaches us about the relation between LFG and LTAG. In Proceedings of the LFG01 Conference. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
  14. Fry, J. (1999). Proof nets and negative polarity licensing. In M. Dalrymple (Ed.), Semantics and syntax in Lexical Functional Grammar: The resource logic approach. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  15. Girard J.-Y. (1987). Linear logic. Theoretical Computer Science 50: 1–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Girard J.-Y. (1989). Proofs and types. Cambridge, Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  17. Howard, W. A. (1980). The formulae-as-types notion of construction. In J. Hindley, & J. Selden (Eds.), To H.B. Curry: Essays on combinatory logic, lambda calculus and formalism. New York: Academic Press. Conceived in 1969. Sometimes cited as Howard (1969).Google Scholar
  18. Janssen T.M.V. (1997). Compositionality. In van Benthem J., ter Meulen A. (eds). Handbook of logic and language. Amsterdam, Elsevier, pp. 417–473Google Scholar
  19. Kaplan R.M., Bresnan J. (1982). Lexical functional grammar: a formal system for grammatical representation. In Bresnan J. (ed). The mental representation of grammar relations. Cambridge MA, MIT Press, pp. 173–281Google Scholar
  20. Kokkonidis, M. (2005). Why glue your donkey to an f-structure when you can constrain and bind it instead? In M. Butt, & T. H. King (Eds.), Proceedings of the LFG05 Conference. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
  21. Montague, R. (1974). Formal philosophy. Selected papers of Richard Montague. New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press. Edited and with an introduction by Richard H. Thomason.Google Scholar
  22. Moorgat, M. (1997). Categorial type logics. In J. van Benthem, & A. ter Meulen (Eds.), Handbook of logic and language. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  23. Morrill G.V. (1994). Type logical grammar: Categorial logic of signs. Dordrecht, KluwerGoogle Scholar
  24. Potts, C. (2003). The logic of conventional implicatures. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Santa Cruz.Google Scholar
  25. van Genabith, J., & Crouch, R. (1997). How to glue a donkey to an f-structure or porting a dynamic meaning representation language into LFG’s linear logic based glue language semantics. In Proceedings of the International Workshop for Computational Semantics (pp. 52–65). Tilburg.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Computational Linguistics GroupUniversity of OxfordOxfordUK

Personalised recommendations