Journal of Logic, Language and Information

, Volume 6, Issue 3, pp 219–273

Quantifiers, Anaphora, and Intensionality

  • Mary Dalrymple
  • John Lamping
  • Fernando Pereira
  • Vijay Saraswat
Article

Abstract

The relationship between Lexical-Functional Grammar (LFG) functional structures (f-structures) for sentences and their semanticinterpretations can be formalized in linear logic in a way thatcorrectly explains the observed interactions between quantifier scopeambiguity, bound anaphora and intensionality.

Our linear-logic formalization of the compositional properties ofquantifying expressions in natural language obviates the need forspecial mechanisms, such as Cooper storage, in representing thescoping possibilities of quantifying expressions. Instead, thesemantic contribution of a quantifier is recorded as a linear-logicformula whose use in a proof will establish the scope of thequantifier. Different proofs can lead to different scopes. In eachcomplete proof, the properties of linear logic ensure thatquantifiers are properly scoped.

The interactions between quantified NPs and intensional verbs such as’’seek‘‘ are also accounted for in this deductive setting. A singlespecification in linear logic of the argument requirements ofintensional verbs is sufficient to derive the correct readingpredictions for intensional-verb clauses both with nonquantified andwith quantified direct objects. In particular, both de dictoand de re readings are derived for quantified objects. Theeffects of type-raising or quantifying-in rules in other frameworksjust follow here as linear-logic theorems.

While our approach resembles current categorial approaches inimportant ways (Moortgat, 1988, 1992a; Carpenter, 1993; Morrill, 1994)it differs from them in allowing the greater compositional flexibility ofcategorial semantics (van Benthem, 1991)while maintaining a precise connection to syntax. As a result, we areable to provide derivations for certain readings of sentences withintensional verbs and complex direct objects whose derivation inpurely categorial accounts of the syntax-semantics interface appearsto require otherwise unnecessary semantic decompositions of lexicalentries.

Quantification anaphora intensional verbs syntax-interface lexical-functionalgrammar linear logic 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alsina, A., 1993, "Predicate composition: A theory of syntactic function alternations," Ph.D. Thesis, Stanford University.Google Scholar
  2. Barwise, J. and Cooper, R., 1981, "Generalized quantifiers and natural language," Linguistics and Philosophy 4, 159–219.Google Scholar
  3. Bos, J., Mastenbroek, E., McGlashan, S., Millies, S., and Pinkal, M., 1994, "A compositional DRS-based formalism for NLP applications," Technical Report 59, Universität des Saarlandes, Saarbrücken, Germany.Google Scholar
  4. Bresnan, J., 1982a, "Control and complementation," Linguistic Inquiry 13, 343–434. Reprinted as pp. 282–390 in The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations, J. Bresnan, ed., Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bresnan, J., ed., 1982b, The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  6. Bresnan, J. and Kanerva, J.M., 1989, "Locative inversion in Chicheŵa: A case study of factorization in grammar," Linguistic Inquiry 20(1), 1–50. Also in Syntax and Semantics 26: Syntax and the Lexicon, E. Wehrli and T. Stowell, eds., New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  7. Butt, M., 1993, "The structure of complex predicates," Ph.D. Thesis, Stanford University.Google Scholar
  8. Carpenter, B., 1993, "Quantification and scoping: a deductive account," M.S., Carnegie-Mellon University.Google Scholar
  9. Cooper, R., 1979, "Variable binding and relative clauses," pp. 131–169 in Formal Semantics and Pragmatics for Natural Languages, F. Guenther and S.J. Schmidt, eds., Dordrecht: D. Reidel.Google Scholar
  10. Dalrymple, M., 1993, The Syntax of Anaphoric Binding. Volume 36 of CSLI Lecture Notes. Center for the Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar
  11. Dalrymple, M., Hinrichs, A., Lamping, J., and Saraswat, V., 1993a, "The resource logic of complex predicate interpretation," pp. 3–21 in Proceedings of the 1993 Republic of China Computational Linguistics Conference (ROCLING), Hsitou National Park, Taiwan, September 1993. Computational Linguistics Society of R.O.C.Google Scholar
  12. Dalrymple, M., Lamping, J., and Saraswat, V., 1993b, "LFG semantics via constraints," pp. 97–105 in Proceedings of the Sixth Meeting of the European ACL, University of Utrecht, April 1993. European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
  13. Dalrymple, M., Kaplan, R.M., Maxwell, III, J.T., and Zaenen, A., eds., 1995, Formal Issues in Lexical-Functional Grammar. Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford University.Google Scholar
  14. Dalrymple, M., Lamping, J., Pereira, F.C.N., and Saraswat, V., 1996a, "A deductive account of quantification in LFG," pp. 33–57 in Quantifiers, Deduction, and Context, Volume 57 of CSLI Lecture Notes, M. Kanazawa, C.J. Piñón, and H. de Swart, eds., Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. Originally presented at the Second CSLI Workshop on Logic, Language, and Computation, June 4–6, 1993.Google Scholar
  15. Dalrymple, M., Lamping, J., Pereira, F.C.N., and Saraswat, V., 1996b, "Intensional verbs without type-raising or lexical ambiguity," pp. 167–182 in Logic, Language and Computation (Volume 1), Volume 58 of CSLI Lecture Notes, Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. Originally presented at the Conference on Information Oriented Approaches to Logic, Language and Computation, Saint Mary’s College, Moraga, CA, 1994.Google Scholar
  16. Fenstad, J.E., Halvorsen, P.K., Langholm, T., and van Benthem, J., 1987, Situations, Language and Logic, Dordrecht: D. Reidel.Google Scholar
  17. Gamut, L.T.F., 1991, Logic, Language, and Meaning, Volume 2: Intensional Logic and Logical Grammar, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  18. Gawron, J.M. and Peters, S., 1990, Anaphora and Quantification in Situation Semantics, Volume 19 of CSLI Lecture Notes. Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford University.Google Scholar
  19. Girard, J.Y., 1987, "Linear logic," Theoretical Computer Science 50, 1–102.Google Scholar
  20. Groenendijk, J. and Stokhof, M., 1991, "Dynamic predicate logic: Towards a compositional, non-representational semantics of discourse," Linguistics and Philosophy 14(1), 39–100.Google Scholar
  21. Grosz, B., Haas, N., Hendrix, G.G., Hobbs, J., Martin, P., Moore, R., Robinson, J., and Rosenschein, S., 1982, "Dialogic: A core natural-language processing system," Technical Note 270, Artificial Intelligence Center, SRI International, Menlo Park, CA.Google Scholar
  22. Halvorsen, P.K., 1983, "Semantics for Lexical-Functional Grammar," Linguistic Inquiry 14(4), 567–615.Google Scholar
  23. Halvorsen, P.K., 1988, "Situation Semantics and semantic interpretation in constraint-based grammars," pp. 471–478 in Proceedings of the International Conference on Fifth Generation Computer Systems (FGCS88), Tokyo, Japan, November 1988. Also published as CSLI Technical Report CSLI-TR-101, Stanford University, 1987. Reprinted in 1995 as pp. 293–309 in Formal Issues in Lexical-Functional Grammar, M. Dalrymple et al., eds., Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar
  24. Halvorsen, P.K., and Kaplan, R.M., 1988, "Projections and semantic description in Lexical-Functional Grammar," pp. 1116–1122 in Proceedings of the International Conference on Fifth Generation Computer Systems (FGCS88), Tokyo, Japan, November 1988. Reprinted in 1995 as pp. 279–292 in Formal Issues in Lexical-Functional Grammar, M. Dalrymple et al., eds., Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar
  25. Hendriks, H., 1993, "Studied flexibility: Categories and types in syntax and semantics," ILLC Dissertation series 1993–5, Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  26. Hepple, M., 1990, "The grammar and processing of order and dependency: A categorial approach," Ph.D. Thesis, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
  27. Howard, W.A., 1980, "The formulae-as-types notion of construction," pp. 479–490 in To H.B. Curry: Essays on Combinatory Logic, Lambda Calculus and Formalism, J.P. Seldin and J.R. Hindley, eds., London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  28. Huet, G., 1975, "A unification algorithm for typed {ie271-01}-calculus," Theoretical Computer Science 1, 27–57.Google Scholar
  29. Johnson, M. and Kay, M., 1990, "Semantic abstraction and anaphora," pp. 17–27 in COLING-90: Papers presented to the 13th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, H. Karlgren, ed., Helsinki: Helsinki University.Google Scholar
  30. Kamp, H. and Reyle, U., 1993, From Discourse to Logic: An Introduction to Modeltheoretic Semantics of Natural Language, Formal Logic and Discourse Representation Theory, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  31. Kanovich, M.I., 1992, "Horn programming in linear logic is NP-complete," pp. 200–210 in Seventh Annual IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science, Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society Press.Google Scholar
  32. Kaplan, R.M. and Bresnan, J., 1982, "Lexical-Functional Grammar: A formal system for grammatical representation," pp. 173–281 in The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations, J. Bresnan, ed., Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Reprinted in 1995 as pp. 29–130 in Formal Issues in Lexical-Functional Grammar, M. Dalrymple et al., eds., Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar
  33. Kaplan, R.M., 1987, "Three seductions of computational psycholinguistics," pp. 149–181 in Linguistic Theory and Computer Applications, P. Whitelock et al., eds., London: Academic Press. Also: CCL/UMIST Report No. 86.2: Alvey/ICL Workshop on Linguistic Theory and Computer Applications: Transcripts of Presentations and Discussions. Center for Computational Linguistics, University of Manchester, Institute of Science and Technology, Manchester. Reprinted in 1995 as pp. 337–367 in Formal Issues in Lexical-Functional Grammar, M. Dalrymple et al., eds., Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar
  34. Klein, E. and Sag, I., 1985, "Type-driven translation," Linguistics and Philosophy 8, 163–201.Google Scholar
  35. Lambek, J., 1958, "The mathematics of sentence structure," American Mathematical Monthly 65, 154–170.Google Scholar
  36. Levin, L.S., Rappaport, M., and Zaenen, A., ed., 1983, Papers in Lexical-Functional Grammar, Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
  37. Miller, D.A., 1990, "A logic programming language with lambda abstraction, function variables and simple unification," pp. 253–281 in Extensions of Logic Programming, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, P. Schröder-Heister, ed., Berlin: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  38. Montague, R., 1974, "The proper treatment of quantification in ordinary English," pp. 247–270 in Formal Philosophy, R.H. Thomason, ed., New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Moortgat, M., 1988, "Categorial investigations: Logical and linguistic aspects of the Lambek Calculus," Ph.D. Thesis, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  40. Moortgat, M., 1992a, "Generalized quantifiers and discontinuous type constructors," in Discontinuous Constituency, W. Sijtsma and H. van Horck, eds., Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, to appear.Google Scholar
  41. Moortgat, M., 1992b, "Labelled deductive systems for categorial theorem proving," pp. 403–423 in Proceedings of the Eighth Amsterdam Colloquium, P. Dekker and M. Stokhof, eds., Amsterdam: Institute for Logic, Language and Computation.Google Scholar
  42. Moortgat, M., 1995, "Multimodal linguistic inference," Bulletin of the Interest Group in Pure and Applied Logics 3(2–3), 371–401.Google Scholar
  43. Morrill, G., 1990, "Intensionality and boundedness," Linguistics and Philosophy 13(6), 699–726.Google Scholar
  44. Morrill, G.V., 1994, Type Logical Grammar: Categorial Logic of Signs, Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  45. Neale, S., 1990, Descriptions, Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  46. Oehrle, R.T., 1994, "Term-labeled categorial type systems," Linguistics and Philosophy 17(6), 633–678.Google Scholar
  47. Oehrle, R.T., 1995a, "LFG as labeled deduction," Presented at Mathematics of Language 4, University of Pennsylvania, October 1995.Google Scholar
  48. Oehrle, R.T., 1995b, "Some 3-dimensional systems of labelled deduction," Bulletin of the Interest Group in Pure and Applied Logics 3(2–3), 429–448.Google Scholar
  49. Partee, B. and Rooth, M., 1983, "Generalized conjunction and type ambiguity," pp. 361–383 in Meaning, Use, and Interpretation of Language, R. Bauerle, C. Schwarze, and A. von Stechow, eds., Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  50. Pereira, F.C.N., 1990, "Categorial semantics and scoping," Computational Linguistics 16(1), 1–10.Google Scholar
  51. Pereira, F.C.N., 1991, "Semantic interpretation as higher-order deduction," pp. 78–96 in Logics in AI: European Workshop JELIA’90, Amsterdam, J. van Eijck, ed., Berlin: SpringerVerlag.Google Scholar
  52. Pollard, C. and Sag, I.A., 1987, Information-Based Syntax and Semantics, Volume I. Volume 13 of CSLI Lecture Notes. Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford University.Google Scholar
  53. Pollard, C. and Sag, I.A., 1993, Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  54. Reyle, U., 1988, "Compositional semantics for LFG," pp. 448–474 in Natural Language Parsing and Linguistic Theories, U. Reyle and C. Rohrer, eds., Dordrecht: D. ReidelGoogle Scholar
  55. Rodman, R., 1976, "Scope phenomena, ‘movement transformations’, and relative clauses," pp. 165–176 in Montague Grammar, B. Partee, ed., New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  56. Roorda, D., 1991, "Resource logics: Proof-theoretical investigations," Ph.D. Thesis, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  57. Saraswat, V.A. and Lincoln, P., 1992, "Higher-order, linear concurrent constraint programming," Technical report, Xerox Palo Alto Research Center.Google Scholar
  58. Saraswat, V.A., 1989, "Concurrent constraint programming languages," Ph.D. Thesis, Carnegie-Mellon University. Reprinted in 1993 by MIT Press, Doctoral Dissertation Award and Logic Programming Series.Google Scholar
  59. Saraswat, V.A., 1993, "A brief introduction to linear concurrent constraint programming," Technical report, Xerox Palo Alto Research Center.Google Scholar
  60. Scedrov, A., 1993, "A brief guide to linear logic," pp. 377–394 in Current Trends in Theoretical Computer Science, G. Rozenberg and A. Salomaa, eds., River Edge, MN: World Scientific Publishing Co.Google Scholar
  61. van Benthem, J., 1986, "Categorial grammar and lambda calculus," pp. 39–60 in Mathematical Logic and Its Application, D. Skordev, ed., New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
  62. van Benthem, J., 1988, "The Lambek calculus," pp. 35–68 in Categorial Grammars and Natural Language Structures, R.T. Oehrle, E. Bach, and D. Wheeler, eds., Dordrecht: D. Reidel.Google Scholar
  63. van Benthem, J., 1991, Language in Action: Categories, Lambdas and Dynamic Logic, Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mary Dalrymple
    • 1
  • John Lamping
    • 1
  • Fernando Pereira
    • 2
  • Vijay Saraswat
    • 2
  1. 1.Xerox PARCPalo AltoU.S.A.
  2. 2.AT&T ResearchMurray HillU.S.A.

Personalised recommendations