An LTAG Perspective on Categorial Inference

  • Aravind K. Joshi
  • Seth Kulick
  • Natasha Kurtonina
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2014)


This paper describes a system of categorial inference based on insights from Lexicalized Tree Adjoining Grammar (LTAG). LTAG is a tree-rewriting system and therefore deals with structural, not string, adjacency. When looked at from the logic perspective, the nodes of the trees become types as in a categorial grammar, with corresponding deductive connections between parent and daughter nodes. The resulting system is based on a hybrid logic, with one logic for building Partial Proof Trees, and the other for composing the partial proofs. We reexamine the use of structural modalities in categorial grammar from this perspective, concluding that the use of structural modalities can be considerably simplified, or even eliminated in some cases. The generative power of the hybrid logic system is beyond context-free, as we demonstrate with a derivation of the cross-serial dependencies in Dutch. The system also inherits polynomial parsing from LTAG.


Relative Clause Elementary Tree Proof Tree Hybrid Logic Categorial Grammar 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Abrusci, M., Ch. Fouqueré, and J. Vauzeilles. Tree adjoining grammar and noncommutative linear logic. In Proceedings of Logical Aspects of Computational Linguistics, 1996.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Joshi, A. K., and S. Kulick. Partial proof trees as building blocks for a categorical grammar. Linguistics and Philosophy, 20:637–667, 1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kroch, A. S., and B. Santorini The derived constituent structure of the West Germanic verb-raising construction. In Freidin, R., editor, Principles and Parameters in Comparative Grammar. MIT Press, Cambridge MA, 1991.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kurtonina, N., and M. Moortgat. Structural control. In Blackburn, P., and M. de Rijke, editors, Specifying Syntactic Structures. CSLI, 1997.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lecomte, A., and C. Retoré. Words as modules and modules as partial proof-nets. In Benjamins, J., editor, Proceedings of ICML 96, 1996.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Moortgat, M., and R. Oehrle. Logical parameters and linguistic variation. Lecture notes on categorial grammar, 1993. Fifth European Summer School in Logic, Language and Information, Lisbon.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Moortgat, M., and R. Oehrle. Adjacency, dependency and order. In Dekker, P., and M. Stokhof, editors, Proceedings Ninth Amsterdam Colloqiuium, pages 447–466, ILLC, Amsterdam, 1994.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Moortgat, M. Categorial type logics. In Benthem, J. van, and A. ter Meulen, editors, Handbook of Logic and Language. North Holland, 1997.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Morrill, G. Type Logical Grammar—Categorial Logic of Signs. Kluwer, Dordrecht, 1994.zbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Aravind K. Joshi
    • 1
  • Seth Kulick
    • 1
  • Natasha Kurtonina
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Computer and Information Science and Institute for Research in Cognitive ScienceUSA
  2. 2.Institute for Research in Cognitive ScienceUniversity of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphia

Personalised recommendations