Journal of Logic, Language and Information

, Volume 7, Issue 4, pp 413–431 | Cite as

Syntactic Calculus with Dependent Types

  • Aarne Ranta


The aim of this study is to look at the the syntactic calculus of Bar-Hillel and Lambek, including semantic interpretation, from the point of view of constructive type theory. The syntactic calculus is given a formalization that makes it possible to implement it in a type-theoretical proof editor. Such an implementation combines formal syntax and formal semantics, and makes the type-theoretical tools of automatic and interactive reasoning available in grammar.

In the formalization, the use of the dependent types of constructive type theory is essential. Dependent types are already needed in the semantics of ordinary Lambek calculus. But they also suggest some natural extensions of the calculus, which are applied to the treatment of morphosyntactic dependencies and to an analysis of selectional restrictions. Finally, directed dependent function types are introduced, corresponding to the Π types of constructive type theory.

Two alternative formalizations are given: one using syntax trees, like Montague grammar, and one dispensing with them, like the theory called minimalistic by Morrill. The syntax tree approach is presented as the main alternative, because it makes it possible to embed the calculus in a more extensive Montague-style grammar.

Constructive type theory Lambek calculus proof editors 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Ajdukiewicz, K., 1935, “Die syntaktische Konnexität,” Studia Philosophica 1, 1–27.Google Scholar
  2. Bar-Hillel, Y., 1953, “A quasi-arithmetical notation for syntactic description,” Language 29, 47–58.Google Scholar
  3. Chomsky, N., 1965, Aspects of the Theory of Syntax, Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  4. Gazdar, G., Klein, E., Pullum, G., and Sag, I., 1985, Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar, Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  5. Lambek, J., 1958, “The mathematics of sentence structure,” American Mathematical Monthly 65, 154–170.Google Scholar
  6. Martin-Löf, P., 1984, Intuitionistic Type Theory, Naples: Bibliopolis.Google Scholar
  7. Montague, R., 1974, Formal Philosophy, New Haven: Yale University Press, Collected papers edited by Richmond Thomason.Google Scholar
  8. Morrill, G., 1994, Type Logical Grammar, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  9. Ranta, A., 1994, Type-Theoretical Grammar, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Ranta, A., 1995, “Syntactic categories in the language of mathematics,” pp. 162–182 in Types for Proofs and Programs, P. Dybjer, B. Nordström, and J. Smith, eds., Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 996, Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Aarne Ranta
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of HelsinkiHelsinkiFinland

Personalised recommendations