Advertisement

Scope Parallelism in Coordination in Dependent Type Semantics

  • Yusuke KubotaEmail author
  • Robert Levine
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10091)

Abstract

The scope parallelism in the so-called Geach sentences in right-node raising (Every boy admires, and every girl detests, some saxophonist) poses a difficult challenge to many analyses of right-node raising, including ones formulated in the type-logical variants of categorial grammar (e.g. Kubota and Levine (2015)). In this paper, we first discuss Steedman’s (2012) solution to this problem in Combinatory Categorial Grammar, and point out some empirical problems for it. We then propose a novel analysis of the Geach problem within Hybrid Type-Logical Categorial Grammar (Kubota and Levine 2015), by incorporating Dependent Type Semantics (Bekki 2014) as the semantic component of the theory. The key solution for the puzzle consists in linking quantifiers to the argument positions that they correspond to via an anaphoric process. Independently motivated mechanisms for anaphora resolution in DTS then automatically predicts the scope parallelism in Geach sentences as a consequence of binding parallelism independently observed in right-node raising sentences.

Keywords

Scope parallelism Coordination Right-node raising Hybrid Type-Logical Categorial Grammar Dependent Type Semantics 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank two anonymous reviewers for LENLS 12 for their insightful comments. Discussions with Daisuke Bekki and Koji Mineshima have also been very useful. The first author acknowledges the financial support from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (KAKENHI; Grant number 15K16732).

References

  1. Bekki, D.: Representing anaphora with dependent types. In: Asher, N., Soloviev, S. (eds.) Logical Aspects of Computational Linguistics 2014. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 8535, pp. 14–29. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)Google Scholar
  2. Déchaine, R-M., Martina W.: Bound variable anaphora (2014). http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/002280
  3. Fox, D.: Reconstruction, binding theory, and the interpretation of chains. Linguist. Inq. 30, 157–196 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Fox, D.: Economy and Semantic Interpretation. MIT Press, Cambridge (2000)Google Scholar
  5. Fox, D.: Antecedent-contained deletion and the copy theory of movement. Linguist. Inq. 33(1), 63–96 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Geach, P.T.: A program for syntax. In: Davidson, D., Harman, G.H. (eds.) Semantics of Natural Language, pp. 483–497. D. Reidel Publishing Co., Dordrecht (1972)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Jacobson, P.: Towards a variable-free semantics. Linguist. Philos. 22(2), 117–184 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Krahmer, E., Piwek, P.: Presupposition projection as proof construction. In: Bunt, H., Muskens, R. (eds.) Computing Meaning, vol. 1, pp. 281–300. Kluwer, Dordrecht (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kubota, Y., Levine, R.: Against ellipsis: arguments for the direct licensing of ‘non-canonical’ coordinations. Linguist. Philos. 38(6), 521–576 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Martin-Löf, P.: Intuitionistic Type Theory. Bibliopolis, Naples (1984)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. Piwek, P., Krahmer, E.: Presuppositions in context: constructing bridges. In: Bonzon, P., Cavalcanti, M., Nossum, R. (eds.) Formal Aspects of Context, pp. 85–106. Kluwer, Dordrecht (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Steedman, M.: Taking Scope. MIT Press, Cambridge (2012)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of TsukubaTsukubaJapan
  2. 2.Ohio State UniversityColumbusUSA

Personalised recommendations