Advertisement

An Analysis of Selectional Restrictions with Dependent Type Semantics

  • Eriko KinoshitaEmail author
  • Koji Mineshima
  • Daisuke Bekki
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10247)

Abstract

Predicates in natural languages impose selectional restrictions on their arguments. In this paper, we analyze selectional restrictions of predicates within the framework of Dependent Type Semantics, a framework of natural language semantics based on dependent type theory. We also introduce operators that shift the meanings of predicates and analyze two phenomena, coercion and copredication for logical polysemous nouns, that present challenges to simple analysis of selectional restrictions.

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank the two anonymous reviewers for helpful comments and suggestions. We also thank the audience of LENLS13 for their valuable comments and discussions. This work was supported by CREST, Japan Science and Technology Agency.

References

  1. 1.
    Asher, N.: Lexical Meaning in Context: A Web of Words. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Asher, N.: Selectional restrictions, types and categories. J. Appl. Logic 12(1), 75–87 (2014)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Beaver, D.I.: Presupposition and Assertion in Dynamic Semantics. Studies in Logic, Language and Information. CSLI Publications & FoLLI, Stanford (2001)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bekki, D.: Representing anaphora with dependent types. In: Asher, N., Soloviev, S. (eds.) LACL 2014. LNCS, vol. 8535, pp. 14–29. Springer, Heidelberg (2014). doi: 10.1007/978-3-662-43742-1_2 Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bekki, D., Mineshima, K.: Context-passing and underspecification in dependent type semantics. In: Chatzikyriakidis, S., Luo, Z. (eds.) Modern Perspectives in Type-Theoretical Semantics. SLP, vol. 98, pp. 11–41. Springer, Cham (2017). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-50422-3_2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Luo, Z.: Formal semantics in modern type theories with coercive subtyping. Linguist. Philos. 35(6), 491–513 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Magidor, O.: Categiry Mistakes. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Martin-Löf, P.: Intuitionistic Type Theory. Bibliopolis, Naples (1984)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    McCawley, J.D.: Concerning the base component of a transformational grammar. Found. Lang. 4(3), 243–269 (1968)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Nunberg, G.: Transfers of meaning. J. Semant. 12(2), 109–132 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Retoré, C.: The montagovian generative lexicon lambda tyn: a type theoretical framework for natural language semantics. In: 19th International Conference on Types for Proofs and Programs (TYPES 2013), pp. 202–229 (2014)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Steedman, M.: Surface Structure and Interpretation. The MIT Press, Cambridge (1996)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eriko Kinoshita
    • 1
    Email author
  • Koji Mineshima
    • 1
    • 2
  • Daisuke Bekki
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Ochanomizu UniversityBunkyōJapan
  2. 2.CRESTJapan Science and Technology AgencyKawaguchiJapan

Personalised recommendations