A Type-Theoretic Account of Neg-Raising Predicates in Tree Adjoining Grammars

  • Laurence Danlos
  • Philippe de GrooteEmail author
  • Sylvain PogodallaEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8417)


Neg-Raising (NR) verbs form a class of verbs with a clausal complement that show the following behavior: when a negation syntactically attaches to the matrix predicate, it can semantically attach to the embedded predicate. This paper presents an account of NR predicates within Tree Adjoining Grammar (TAG). We propose a lexical semantic interpretation that heavily relies on a Montague-like semantics for TAG and on higher-order types.


Tree Adjoining Grammar Semantics \(\lambda \)-calculus Type theory Neg-raising 


  1. 1.
    Bartsch, R.: “Negative Transportation” gibt es nicht. Linguistische Berichte 27 (1973)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gajewski, J.R.: Neg-raising and polarity. Linguist. Philos. 30(3), 289–328 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Joshi, A.K., Schabes, Y.: Tree-adjoining grammars. In: Rozenberg, G., Salomaa, A. (eds.) Handbook of Formal Languages, vol. 3. Springer, Berlin (1997)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    de Groote, P.: Towards abstract categorial grammars. In: Association for Computational Linguistics, 39th Annual Meeting and 10th Conference of the European Chapter, Proceedings of the Conference, pp. 148–155 (2001)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Shieber, S.M., Schabes, Y.: Synchronous tree-adjoining grammars. In: Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, Helsinki, Finland, vol. 3, pp. 253–258 (1990)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Nesson, R., Shieber, S.M.: Simpler TAG semantics through synchronization. In: Proceedings of the 11th Conference on Formal Grammar, Malaga, Spain, CSLI Publications, 29–30 July 2006Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Storoshenk, D.R., Frank, R.: Deriving syntax-semantics mappings: node linking, type shifting and scope ambiguity. In: hye Han, C., Satta, G. (eds.) Proceedings of the 11th International Workshop on Tree Adjoining Grammars and Related Framework (TAG+11), pp. 10–18 (2012)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Horn, L.R.: Neg-raising predicates: towards an explanation. In: Proceedings of CLS 11 (1975)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Horn, L.R.: A Natural History of Negation. University of Chicago Press, Chicago (1989)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Horn, L.R.: Negative transportation: unsafe at any speed? In: Proceedings of CLS 7 (1971)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lichte, T., Kallmeyer, L.: Licensing German negative polarity items in LTAG. In: Proceedings of the Eighth International Workshop on Tree Adjoining Grammar and Related Formalisms, Sydney, Australia, pp. 81–90. Association for Computational Linguistics, July 2006Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Danlos, L.: Connecteurs de discours adverbiaux: Problèmes à l’interface syntaxe-sémantique. Lingvisticæ Investigationes 36(2) (2013)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Danlos, L.: D-STAG: a formalism for discourse analysis based on SDRT and using synchronous TAG. In: de Groote, P., Egg, M., Kallmeyer, L. (eds.) FG 2009. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 5591, pp. 64–84. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    XTAG Research Group: A lexicalized tree adjoining grammar for English. Technical report IRCS-01-03, IRCS, University of Pennsylvania (2001)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Abeillé, A.: Une grammaire électronique du français. CNRS Éditions (2002)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    de Groote, P.: Tree-adjoining grammars as abstract categorial grammars. In: TAG+6, Proceedings of the sixth International Workshop on Tree Adjoining Grammars and Related Frameworks, Università di Venezia, pp. 145–150 (2002)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Pogodalla, S.: Advances in abstract categorial grammars: language theory and linguistic modeling. ESSLLI 2009 Lecture Notes, Part II (2009)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Shieber, S.M.: Unifying synchronous tree adjoining grammars and tree transducers via bimorphisms. In: Proceedings of the 11th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (EACL-2006), pp. 377–384 (2006)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    de Groote, P., Maarek, S.: Type-theoretic extensions of abstract categorial grammars. In: New Directions in Type-Theoretic Grammars, Proceedings of the Workshop, 18–30 (2007).
  20. 20.
    de Groote, P., Maarek, S., Yoshinaka, R.: On two extensions of abstract categorial grammars. In: Dershowitz, N., Voronkov, A. (eds.) LPAR 2007. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4790, pp. 273–287. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Abusch, D.: Presupposition triggering from alternatives. J. Semant. 27(1), 37–80 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Weir, D.J.: Characterizing Mildly Context-Sensitive Grammar Formalisms. Ph.D. thesis, University of Pennsylvania (1988)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kallmeyer, L., Romero, M.: Scope and situation binding for LTAG. Res. Lang. Comput. 6(1), 3–52 (2008)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Université Paris Diderot (Paris 7)ParisFrance
  2. 2.ALPAGE, INRIA Paris-RocquencourtParisFrance
  3. 3.Institut Universitaire de FranceParisFrance
  4. 4.INRIAVillers-lès-NancyFrance
  5. 5.Université de Lorraine, LORIA, UMR 7503Vandœuvre-lès-NancyFrance
  6. 6.CNRS, LORIA, UMR 7503Vandœuvre-lès-NancyFrance

Personalised recommendations