Strong and Weak Quantifiers in Focused NL\(_{\text {CL}}\)

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10054)


We propose an improvement of Barker and Shan’s [4] NL\(_{\text {CL}}\) for which derivability is decidable, which has a normal-form for proof search, can analyse scope islands, and distinguish between strong and weak quantifiers.


Categorial grammar Focusing Scope Islands Indefinite scope 


  1. 1.
    Andreoli, J.: Focussing and proof construction. Ann. Pure Appl. Logic 107(1–3), 131–163 (2001)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Barker, C.: Continuations and the nature of quantification. Nat. Lang. Semant. 10(3), 211–242 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Barker, C.: Parasitic scope. Linguist. Philos. 30(4), 407–444 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Barker, C., Shan, C.: Continuations and Natural Language. Oxford Studies in Theoretical Linguistics, vol. 53. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bastenhof, A.: Polarized classical non-associative lambek calculus and formal semantics. In: Pogodalla, S., Prost, J.-P. (eds.) LACL 2011. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 6736, pp. 33–48. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-22221-4_3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bastenhof, A.: Categorial symmetry.
  7. 7.
    Belnap, N.D.: Display logic. J Philos. Logic 11(4), 375–417 (1982)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Finger, M.: Computational solutions for structural constraints. In: Moortgat, M. (ed.) LACL 1998. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2014, pp. 11–30. Springer, Heidelberg (2001). doi:10.1007/3-540-45738-0_2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Heim, I., Kratzer, A.: Semantics in Generative Grammar, vol. 13. Blackwell Oxford, Oxford (1998)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kiselyov, O.: Compositional semantics of same, different, total. In: Proceedings for ESSLLI 2015 Workshop ‘Empirical Advances in Categorial Grammar’, pp. 71–81 (2015)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kiselyov, O., Shan, C.-C.: Continuation hierarchy and quantifier scope. In: McCready, E., Yabushita, K., Yoshimoto, K. (eds.) Formal Approaches to Semantics and Pragmatics, pp. 105–134. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lambek, J.: Observation of strains. Infect Dis. Ther. 3(1), 35–43 (2011). On the calculus of syntactic types. Structure of language and its mathematical aspects, 166: C178(1961)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Moortgat, M.: In situ binding: a modal analysis. In: Dekker, P., Stokhof, M. (eds) Proceedings of the Tenth Amsterdam Colloquium, pp. 539–549. Institute for Logic, Language and Computation (ILLC) (1996)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Moortgat, M., Moot, R.: Proof nets for the Lambek-Grishin calculus. In: Compositional Methods in Physics and Linguistics, volume abs/1112.6384 (2011)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Morrill, G.: Type Logical Grammar - Categorial Logic of Signs. Kluwer, Alphen aan den Rijn (1994)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Szabolcsi, A.: The syntax of scope. In: The Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory, pp. 607–633. Wiley-Blackwell (2000)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for Logic, Language and ComputationUniversity of AmsterdamAmsterdamNetherlands

Personalised recommendations