Advertisement

Inverse Scope as Metalinguistic Quotation in Operational Semantics

  • Chung-chieh Shan
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4914)

Abstract

We model semantic interpretation operationally: constituents interact as their combination in discourse evolves from state to state. The states are recursive data structures and evolve from step to step by context sensitive rewriting. These notions of context and order let us explain inverse scope quantifiers and their polarity sensitivity as metalinguistic quotation of the wider scope.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Trueswell, J.C., Tanenhaus, M.K. (eds.): Approaches to Studying World-Situated Language Use: Bridging the Language-as-Product and Language-as-Action Traditions. MIT Press, Cambridge (2005)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Plotkin, G.D.: A structural approach to operational semantics. Technical Report DAIMI FN-19, Department of Computer Science, University of Aarhus, Revised version submitted to Journal of Logic and Algebraic Programming (1981)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Felleisen, M.: The Calculi of λ v-CS Conversion: A Syntactic Theory of Control and State in Imperative Higher-Order Programming Languages. PhD thesis, Computer Science Department, Indiana University Also as Tech.Rep. 226 (1987)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Felleisen, M.: The theory and practice of first-class prompts. In: POPL 1988. Conference Record of the Annual ACM Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, pp. 180–190. ACM Press, New York (1988)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Danvy, O., Filinski, A.: A functional abstraction of typed contexts. Technical Report 89/12, DIKU, University of Copenhagen, Denmark (1989), http://www.daimi.au.dk/~danvy/Papers/fatc.ps.gz.
  6. 6.
    Danvy, O., Filinski, A.: Abstracting control. In: Proceedings of the 1990 ACM Conference on Lisp and Functional Programming, pp. 151–160. ACM Press, New York (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Danvy, O., Filinski, A.: Representing control: A study of the CPS transformation. Mathematical Structures in Computer Science 2, 361–391 (1992)zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Barker, C., Shan, C.c.: Types as graphs: Continuations in type logical grammar. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 15, 331–370 (2006)CrossRefMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Shan, C.c., Barker, C.: Explaining crossover and superiority as left-to-right evaluation. Linguistics and Philosophy 29, 91–134 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Shan, C.c.: Linguistic side effects. In: Barker, C., Jacobson, P. (eds.) Direct Compositionality, pp. 132–163. Oxford University Press, New York (2007)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Shan, C.c.: Linguistic Side Effects. PhD thesis, Harvard University (2005)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fry, J.: Negative polarity licensing at the syntax-semantics interface. In: Cohen, P.R., Wahlster, W. (eds.) Proceedings of the 35th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and 8th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 144–150. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (1997)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fry, J.: Proof nets and negative polarity licensing. In: Dalrymple, M. (ed.) Semantics and Syntax in Lexical Functional Grammar: The Resource Logic Approach, pp. 91–116. MIT Press, Cambridge (1999)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kiselyov, O., Shan, C.c., Sabry, A.: Delimited dynamic binding. In: ICFP 2006. Proceedings of the ACM International Conference on Functional Programming, pp. 26–37. ACM Press, New York (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Shan, C.c.: Polarity sensitivity and evaluation order in type-logical grammar. In: Dumais, S., Marcu, D., Roukos, S. (eds.) Proceedings of the 2004 Human Language Technology Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Somerset, NJ. Association for Computational Linguistics, vol. 2, pp. 129–132 (2004)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kroch, A.S.: The Semantics of Scope in English. PhD thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (1974) Reprinted by New York: Garland (1979)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Szabolcsi, A.: Positive polarity—negative polarity. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 22, 409–452 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Taha, W., Nielsen, M.F.: Environment classifiers. In: POPL 2003. Conference Record of the Annual ACM Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, pp. 26–37. ACM Press, New York (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Quine, W.V.O.: Word and Object. MIT Press, Cambridge (1960)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ladusaw, W.A.: Polarity Sensitivity as Inherent Scope Relations. PhD thesis, Department of Linguistics, University of Massachusetts (1979) Reprinted by New York: Garland (1980)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Shan, C.c.: Delimited continuations in natural language: Quantification and polarity sensitivity. In: Thielecke, H., ed.: CW 2004: Proceedings of the 4th ACM SIGPLAN Continuations Workshop. Number CSR-04-1 in Tech.Rep., School of Computer Science, University of Birmingham, 55–64 (2004)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bernardi, R.: Reasoning with Polarity in Categorial Type Logic. PhD thesis, Utrecht Institute of Linguistics (OTS), Utrecht University (2002)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Bernardi, R., Szabolcsi, A.: Partially ordered categories: Optionality, scope, and licensing (2006), http://ling.auf.net/lingBuzz/000372
  24. 24.
    Kamp, H.: A theory of truth and semantic representation. In: Groenendijk, J.A.G., Janssen, T.M.V., Stokhof, M.B.J. (eds.) Formal Methods in the Study of Language: Proceedings of the 3rd Amsterdam Colloquium, Amsterdam, Mathematisch Centrum, pp. 277–322 (1981)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Groenendijk, J., Stokhof, M.: Dynamic predicate logic. Linguistics and Philosophy 14, 39–100 (1991)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Heim, I.: The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases. PhD thesis, Department of Linguistics, University of Massachusetts (1982)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Felleisen, M., Friedman, D.P.: A syntactic theory of sequential state. Theoretical Computer Science 69, 243–287 (1989)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Karttunen, L.: Syntax and semantics of questions. Linguistics and Philosophy 1, 3–44 (1977)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Chung-chieh Shan
    • 1
  1. 1.Rutgers University 

Personalised recommendations