This paper starts with a brief history of Natural Logic from its origins to the most recent work on implicatives. It then describes on-going attempts to represent the meanings of so-called evaluative adjectives in these terms based on what linguists have traditionally assumed about constructions such as NP was stupid to VP, NP was not lucky to VP that have been described as factive. It turns out that the account cannot be based solely on lexical classification as the existing framework of Natural Logic assumes.

The conclusion we draw from this ongoing work is that Natural Logic of the classical type must be grounded in a more inclusive theory of Natural Reasoning that takes into account pragmatic factors in the context of use such as the assumed relation between the evaluative adjective and even the perceived communicative intent of the speaker.


Natural Logic Parse Tree Embed Clause Categorial Grammar CSLI Publication 
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.
    Barker, C.: The dynamics of vagueness. Linguistics and Philosophy 25(1), 1–36 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    van Benthem, J.: Language in Action: categories, lambdas and dynamic logic. Studies in Logic, vol. 130. Elsevier, Amsterdam (1991)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    van Benthem, J.: A brief history of natural logic. In: Chakraborti, M.K., Löwe, B., Mitra, M.N., Sarukkai, S. (eds.) Logic, Navya-Nyāya & Applications, Homage to Bimal Krishna Matilal. College Publications, London (2008)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bos, J.: Implementing the binding and accommodation theory for anaphora resolution and presupposition projection. Computational Linguistics 29(2), 179–210 (2003), CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Condoravdi, C., Crouch, D., Everett, J., Paiva, V., Stolle, R., Bobrow, D., van den Berg, M.: Preventing existence. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Formal Ontology in Information Systems, FOIS 2001, pp. 162–173. ACM, New York (2001), CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dowty, D.: The role of negative polarity and concord marking in natural language reasoning. In: Harvey, M., Santelman, L. (eds.) Proceedings of SALT 4, pp. 114–144. University of Rochester (1994)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    van Eijck, J.: Syllogistics=monotonicity+symmetry+existential import, Technical Report, vol. SEN-R0512. CWI, Amsterdam (2005),
  8. 8.
    Van Eijck, J.: Natural logic for natural language. In: ten Cate, B.D., Zeevat, H.W. (eds.) TbiLLC 2005. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4363, pp. 216–230. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Geis, M.L., Zwicky, A.M.: On invited inferences. Linguistic Inquiry 2(4), 561–566 (1971), Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Icard III, T.: Inclusion and exclusion in natural language. Studia Logica 100(4), 705–725 (2012)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Icard III, T., Moss, L.: Recent progress on monotonicity. In: Zaenen, A., Condoravdi, C., de Paiva, V. (eds.) Perspectives on Semantic Representations for Textual Inference. LILT, vol. 9, pp. 167–194. CSLI Publications, Stanford (2014)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kamp, H.: The importance of presupposition. In: Rohrer, C., Roßdeutscher, A., Kamp, H. (eds.) Linguistic Form and its Computation. CSLI Publications, Stanford (2001)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kamp, H., Reyle, U.: From Discourse to Logic: An Introduction to Modeltheoretic Semantics of Natural Language, Formal Logic and DRT. Kluwer, Dordrecht(1993)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Karttunen, L.: Presuppositions of compound sentences. Linguistic Inquiry 4(2), 169–193 (1973)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Karttunen, L.: Implicative verbs. Language 47, 340–358 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Karttunen, L.: Simple and phrasal implicatives. In: *SEM 2012, June 7-8, pp. 124–131. Association for Computational Linguistics, Montréal (2012),
  17. 17.
    Karttunen, L.: You will be lucky to break even. In: King, T.H., de Paiva, V. (eds.) From Quirky Case to Representing Space. Papers in Honor of Annie Zaenen, pp. 167–180. CSLI Publications, Stanford (2013)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Karttunen, L., Peters, S., Zaenen, A., Condoravdi, C.: The chameleon-like nature of evaluative adjectives. In: Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics 10, pp. 233–250. CSSP, Paris (2014)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kiparsky, P., Kiparsky, C.: Fact. In: Bierwisch, M., Heidolph, K.E. (eds.) Progress in Linguistics, pp. 143–173. Mouton, Hague (1970)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    MacCartney, B.: Natural Language Inference. PhD thesis. Stanford University (2009)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    MacCartney, B., Manning, D.C.: An extended model of natural logic. In: Proceedings of the Eight International Conference on Computational Semantics, pp. 140–156. Association for Computational Linguistics (2009)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Nairn, R., Condoravdi, C., Karttunen, L.: Computing relative polarity for textual inference. In: ICoS-5, pp. 67–76 (2006)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Norrick, N.R.: Factive adjectives and the theory of factivity. Niemeyer, Tübingen (1978)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Russell, B.: On denoting. Mind 14(56), 479–493 (1905)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Smessaert, H.: Monotonicity properties of comparative determiners. Linguistics and Philosophy 8(3), 295–336 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sánchez-Valencia, V.: Studies on Natural Logic and Categorial Grammar. PhD thesis. University of Amsterdam (1991)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lauri Karttunen
    • 1
  1. 1.Stanford UniversityStanfordUSA

Personalised recommendations