Research on Language and Computation

, Volume 6, Issue 1, pp 3–52 | Cite as

Scope and Situation Binding in LTAG Using Semantic Unification

Article

Abstract

This paper sets up a framework for Lexicalized Tree Adjoining Grammar (LTAG) semantics that brings together ideas from different recent approaches addressing some shortcomings of LTAG semantics based on the derivation tree. The approach assigns underspecified semantic representations and semantic feature structure descriptions to elementary trees. Semantic computation is guided by the derivation tree and consists of adding feature value equations to the descriptions. A rigorous formal definition of the framework is given. Then, within this framework, an analysis is proposed that accounts for the different scopal properties of quantificational NPs (including nested NPs), adverbs, raising verbs and attitude verbs. Furthermore, by integrating situation variables in the semantics, different situation binding possibilities are derived for different types of quantificational elements.

Keywords

Tree adjoining grammar Computational semantics Quantifier scope Underspecified semantics Situation binding Feature logic 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aoun, J., Li, Y. A. (1993). Syntax of scope. MIT PressGoogle Scholar
  2. Artstein R. (2005). Quantificational arguments in temporal adjuncts clauses. Linguistics and Philosophy 28: 541–597CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Babko-Malaya, O. (2004). LTAG Semantics of NP-Coordination. In: Proceedings of TAG+7. Vancouver.Google Scholar
  4. Barker C. (2002). Continuations and the nature of quantification. Natural Language Semantics 10: 211–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blackburn P., Spaan E. (1993). A modal perspective on the computational complexity of attribute value grammar. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 2: 129–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bos, J. (1995). Predicate logic unplugged. In P. Dekker & M. Stokhof (Eds.), Proceedings of the 10th Amsterdam Colloquium (pp. 133–142).Google Scholar
  7. Bouma, G., Malouf, R., & Sag, I. (1998). Adjunct Scope. Presented at the Workshop models of underspecification and the representation of meaning, 18–22 May 1998, Bad Teinach.Google Scholar
  8. Büring, D. (2001). A situation semantics for binding out of DP. In R. Hastings, B. Jackson, & Z. Zvolenski (Eds.), Proceedings from Semantics and Linguistic Theory XI (pp. 56–75). Ithaca: CLC.Google Scholar
  9. Candito, M.-H., & Kahane, S. (1998). Can the TAG derivation tree represent a semantic graph? An answer in the light of meaning-text theory. In Fourth international workshop on tree adjoining grammars and related frameworks, IRCS Report 98–12 (pp. 25–28). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
  10. Chomsky N. (1986). Barriers. Cambridge, Mass, MIT PressGoogle Scholar
  11. Chomsky N. (1995). The minimalist program. Cambridge, Mass, MIT PressGoogle Scholar
  12. Cinque G. (1999). Adverbs and functional heads a cross-linguistic perspective. NY, Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  13. Copestake, A., Flickinger, D., Sag, I. A., & Pollard, C. (1999). Minimal recursion semantics. An introduction. Manuscript, Stanford University.Google Scholar
  14. Cresswell J.M. (1990). Entities and indices (Chap 4). Dordrecht, KluwerGoogle Scholar
  15. Dras M., Chiang D., Schuler W. (2004). On relations of constituency and dependency grammars. Journal of Language and Computation 2(2): 281–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Farkas D. (1997). Evaluation indices and scope. In: Szabolsci A. (eds) Ways of scope taking. Dordrecht, KluwerGoogle Scholar
  17. Forbes-Riley, K., Webber, B., & Joshi, A. K. (2005). Computing discourse semantics: the predicate-argument semantics of discourse connectives in D-LTAG. Journal of Semantics (to appear).Google Scholar
  18. Fox, D. (1999). Economy and semantic interpretation. MIT Press.Google Scholar
  19. Fox, D., & Sauerland, U. (1996). Illusive scope of universal quantifiers. In Proceedings of NELS 26. Amherst.Google Scholar
  20. Frank, R. (1992). Syntactic locality and tree adjoining grammar: grammatical, acquisition and processing perspectives. Ph.D. thesis, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
  21. Frank, A., & van Genabith, J. (2001). GlueTag. Linear logic based semantics for LTAG–and what it teaches us about LFG and LTAG. In M. Butt & T. H. King (Eds.), Proceedings of the LFG01 Conference. Hong Kong.Google Scholar
  22. Fuchss, R., Koller, A., Niehren, J., & Thater, S. (2004). Minimal recursion semantics as dominance constraints: translation, evaluation, and analysis. In Proceedings of the 42nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL’04). Barcelona, Spain.Google Scholar
  23. Gallin, D. (1975). Intensional and higher-order modal logic with applications to montague semantics (pp. 58–63), North Holland mathematics studies 19. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publ. Co.Google Scholar
  24. Gamut, L.T.F. (1991). Logic language and meaning (vol. II, Chap. 3). University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  25. Gardent, C., & Kallmeyer, L. (2003). Semantic construction in FTAG. In Proceedings of EACL 2003. Budapest.Google Scholar
  26. Heim, I., & Kratzer, A. (1998). Semantics in generative grammar. Blackwell.Google Scholar
  27. Hobbs J.R., Shieber S.M. (1987). An algorithm for generating quantifier scopings. Computational Linguistics 13: 47–63Google Scholar
  28. Johnson M. (1988). Attribute-value logic and the theory of grammar, CSLI Lecture Notes Series. Chicago, University of Chicago PressGoogle Scholar
  29. Johnson, M. (1990). Expressing disjunctive and negative feature constraints with classical first-order logic. In Proceedings of ACL (pp. 173–179).Google Scholar
  30. Johnson M. (1994). Computing with features and formulae. Computational linguistics 20(1): 1–25Google Scholar
  31. Joshi A.K. (1987). An introduction to tree adjoining grammars. In: Manaster-Ramer A. (eds) Mathematics of language. Amsterdam, John Benjamins, pp. 87–114Google Scholar
  32. Joshi, A. K., Kallmeyer, L., & Romero, M. (2003). Flexible composition in LTAG quantifier scope and inverse linking. In H. Bunt, I. van der Sluis, & R. Morante (Eds.), Proceedings of the Fifth International Workshop on Computational Semantics IWCS-5 (pp. 179–194) Tilburg.Google Scholar
  33. Joshi A.K., Schabes Y. (1997). Tree-adjoning grammars. In: Rozenberg G., Salomaa A. (eds) Handbook of formal languages. Berlin, Springer, pp. 69–123Google Scholar
  34. Joshi, A. K., & Vijay-Shanker, K. (1999). Compositional semantics with lexicalized tree-adjoining grammar (LTAG): How much underspecification is necessary? In H. C. Blunt & E. G. C. Thijsse (Eds.), Proceedings of the Third International Workshop on Computational Semantics (IWCS-3) (pp. 131–145). Tilburg.Google Scholar
  35. Kahane, S. (2005). Structure des représentations logiques, polarisation et sous-spécification. In Proceedings of TALN 2005. Dourdan, France.Google Scholar
  36. Kallmeyer, L. (2002a). Enriching the TAG derivation tree for semantics. In Proceedings of KONVENS 2002 (pp. 67–74). Saarbrücken.Google Scholar
  37. Kallmeyer, L. (2002b). Using an enriched TAG derivation structure as basis for semantics. In Proceedings of TAG+6 Workshop (pp. 127–136). Venice.Google Scholar
  38. Kallmeyer L., Joshi A.K. (2003). Factoring predicate argument and scope semantics: underspecified semantics with LTAG. Research on Language and Computation 1(1–2): 3–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kallmeyer, L., & Richter, F. (2006). Constraint-based computational semantics: a comparison between LTAG and LRS. In Proceedings of The Eighth International Workshop on Tree Adjoining Grammar and Related Formalisms (TAG+8). Sydney, Australia.Google Scholar
  40. Kallmeyer, L., & Romero, M. (2004). LTAG semantics with semantic unification. In Proceedings of (TAG+7). Vancouver.Google Scholar
  41. Karttunen, L. (1973). Presupositions of compound sentences. Linguistic Inquiry, (4) 167–193Google Scholar
  42. Karttunen L. (1977). The syntax and semantics of questions. Linguistics and Philosophy 1: 3–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kitahara H. (1996). Raising quantifiers without quantifier raising. In: W. A. et al. (eds) Minimal ideas. John Benjamins, pp. 189–198Google Scholar
  44. Koller, A., Niehren, J., & Thater, S. (2003). Bridging the gap between underspecification formalisms: hole semantics as dominance constraints. In Meeting of the European chapter of the association of computational linguistics (pp. 195–202).Google Scholar
  45. Koller, A., Niehren, J., & Treinen, R. (1998). Dominance Constraints: Algorithms and Complexity. In Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Logical Aspects of Computational Linguistics (LACL). Grenoble, France.Google Scholar
  46. Kratzer, A. (1989). An investigation of the lumps of thought. Linguistics and Philosophy, 12.Google Scholar
  47. Kratzer, A. (1999). Beyond ouch and oops. How descriptive and expressive meaning interact. Ms. http://www.semanticsarchive.net.Google Scholar
  48. Kroch A.S. (1987). Unbounded dependencies and subjacency in a tree adjoining grammar. In: Manaster-Ramer A. (eds) Mathematics of language. Amsterdam, John Benjamins, pp. 143–172Google Scholar
  49. Landman, F. (1996). Plurality. In S. Lappin (Ed.): The handbook of contemporary semantic theory (pp. 425–457). Blackwell.Google Scholar
  50. Larson R. (1985). Quantifying into NP. Ms. MIT, Cambridge, MassGoogle Scholar
  51. May, R. (1977). The grammar of quantification. Ph.D. thesis, MIT.Google Scholar
  52. May, R. (1985). Logical form. Its structure and derivation, linguistic inquiry monographs. Cambridge, Massachusetts/London, England: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  53. Nesson, R., & Shieber, S. M. (2006). Simpler TAG semantics through synchronization. In Proceedings of the Eleventh Conference on Formal Grammar, Malaga, Spain, 29–30 July, 2006.Google Scholar
  54. Percus O. (2000). Constraints on some other variables in syntax. Natural Language Semantics 8: 173–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Pollard C., Sag I.A. (1994). Head-driven phrase structure grammar, Studies in Contemporary Linguistics. Chicago, London, The University of Chicago PressGoogle Scholar
  56. Potts C. (2002). The syntax and semantics of as parentheticals. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 20: 623–689CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Rambow, O., & Satta, G. (1992). Formal properties of non-locality. In Proceedings of the TAG+ Workshop. Philadelphia.Google Scholar
  58. Rambow, O., Vijay-Shanker, K., & Weir, D. (1995). D-Tree grammars. In Proceedings of ACL.Google Scholar
  59. Reinhart, T. (1992). Wh-in-situ: An apparent paradox. In: P. D. et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Eight Amsterdam Colloquium.Google Scholar
  60. Richter, F., & Sailer, M. (2004). Basic concepts of lexical resource semantics. To appear in the series of the Kurt Gödel Sociey, Vienna.Google Scholar
  61. Romero, M. (1998). Focus and reconstruction effects in wh-phrases. Ph.D. thesis, UMass.Google Scholar
  62. Rullmann, H., & Beck, S. (1998). Presupposition projection and the interpretation of which-questions. In D. Strolovitch & A. Lawson (Eds.), Proceedings from Semantics and Linguistic Theory VIII (SALT VIII) (pp. 215–232). CLC Publications.Google Scholar
  63. Sauerland U. (2004). DP is not a scope island. Linguistic Inquiry 36: 303–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Schabes Y., Shieber S.M. (1994). An alternative conception of tree-adjoining derivation. Computational Linguistics 20(1): 91–124Google Scholar
  65. Shieber S.M. (1994). Restricting the weak-generative capacity of synchronous tree-adjoining grammars. Computational Intelligence 10(4): 271–385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Shieber, S. M., & Schabes, Y. (1990). Synchronous tree-adjoining grammars. In Proceedings of COLING (pp. 253–258).Google Scholar
  67. Steedman, M. (2005). Surface-compositional scope-alternation without existential quantifiers. Draft 5.1, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
  68. Stone, M., & Doran, C. (1997). Sentence planning as description using tree-adjoining grammar. In Proceedings of ACL (pp. 192–205).Google Scholar
  69. Vijay-Shanker, K. (1987). A study of tree adjoining grammars. Ph.D. thesis, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
  70. Vijay-Shanker, K., & Joshi, A. K. (1985). Some computational properties of Tree adjoining grammars. In: Proceedings of ACL.Google Scholar
  71. Vijay-Shanker, K., & Joshi, A. K. (1988). Feature structures based tree adjoining grammar. In Proceedings of COLING (pp. 714–719). Budapest.Google Scholar
  72. von Fintel, K., & Iatridou, S. (2003). Epistemic containment. Linguistic Inquiry, (34), 173–198Google Scholar
  73. Weir, D. J. (1988). Characterizing mildly context-sensitive grammar formalisms. Ph.D. thesis, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.SFB 441University of TübingenTübingenGermany
  2. 2.Department of Linguistics, G 212University of konstanzKonstanzGermany

Personalised recommendations