Journal of Logic, Language and Information

, Volume 20, Issue 4, pp 419–443 | Cite as

Semantic Vector Models and Functional Models for Pregroup Grammars

Article

Abstract

We show that vector space semantics and functional semantics in two-sorted first order logic are equivalent for pregroup grammars. We present an algorithm that translates functional expressions to vector expressions and vice-versa. The semantics is compositional, variable free and invariant under change of order or multiplicity. It includes the semantic vector models of Information Retrieval Systems and has an interior logic admitting a comprehension schema. A sentence is true in the interior logic if and only if the ‘usual’ first order formula translating the sentence holds. The examples include negation, universal quantifiers and relative pronouns.

Keywords

Compositional semantics Quantum logic Pregroup grammars Semantic vector models Symmetric compact closed categories Two-sorted functional first order logic 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abramsky, S., & Coecke, B. (2004). A categorical semantics of quantum protocols. In Proceedings of the 19th annual IEEE symposium on logic in computer science, pp. 415–425.Google Scholar
  2. Benthem, J.v., & Doets, K. (1983). Higher-order logic. In Handbook of Philosophical Logic (pp. 275–329). Dordrecht: Reidel Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  3. Clarke, D. (2007). Context-theoretic Semantics for natural language, an algebraic framework, PhD thesis. U.K.: University of Sussex.Google Scholar
  4. Clark S.B.C., Sadrzadeh M. (2008) A compositional distributional model of meaning. In: Bruza W.L.P., van Rijsbergen J. (eds) Proceedings of conference on quantum interactions. University of Oxford, College PublicationsGoogle Scholar
  5. Clark, S., Coecke, B., Grefenstette, E., Pulman, S., & Sadrzadeh, M. (2010). Concrete compositional sentence spaces. In Compositionality and distributional semantic models, ESSLLI 2010.Google Scholar
  6. Kracht M. (2007) The emergence of syntactical structure. Linguistics and Philosophy 30: 47–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Lambek J. (1958) The mathematics of sentence structure. American Mathematical Monthly 65: 154–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Lambek, J. (1993). From categorial grammar to bilinear logic. In Substructural logics (pp. 207–237). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Lambek J. (1999) Type grammar revisited. In: Lecomte et al. A. (eds) Logical Aspects of Computational Linguistics, Vol 1582 of LNAI. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 1–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Lambek J. (2008) From word to sentence. Polimetrica, MilanoGoogle Scholar
  11. Preller, A. (2005). Category theoretical semantics for pregroup grammars. In P. Blache, E. Stabler (Eds.), Logical aspects of computational linguistics (vol. 3492, pp. 254–270). of Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence.Google Scholar
  12. Preller A. (2007) Toward discourse representation via pregroup grammars. JoLLI 16: 173–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Preller, A., & Prince, V. (2010). Quantum logic unites compositional functional semantics and distributional semantic models. In Compositionality and distributional semantic models, ESSLLI 2010.Google Scholar
  14. Preller, A., & Sadrzadeh, M. (2009). Bell states and negated sentences in the distributed model of meaning. In 6th Workshop on quantum physics and logic.Google Scholar
  15. Rijsbergen C. v. (2004) The Geometry of Information Retrieval. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Sadrzadeh, M. (2007). High-level quantum structures in linguistics and multi-agent systems. In AAAI spring symposium on quantum interactions.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.LIRMM-CNRSMontpellierFrance
  2. 2.Computing LaboratoryOxfordUK

Personalised recommendations