Advertisement

Distinguishing Phenogrammar from Tectogrammar Simplifies the Analysis of Interrogatives

  • Vedrana Mihaliček
  • Carl Pollard
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7395)

Abstract

Oehrle (1994) introduced a categorial grammar architecture in which word order is represented using the terms of a typed λ-calculus and the syntactic type system is based on linear logic. In this paper, we use a variant of this architecture to analyze interrogatives in English and Chinese. We show that separating word order (phenogrammar) and syntactic combinatorics (tectogrammar) in this way brings out the underlying similarities between different question-forming strategies. In particular, the difference between wh extraction (overt movement) and wh in situ (covert movement) turns out to be purely phenogrammatical.

Keywords

Noun Phrase Word Order Semantic Type Lexical Entry Embed Clause 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Baldridge, Jason, Lexically Specied Derivational Control in Combinatory Categorial Grammar. Ph.D. thesis. University of Edinburgh (2002)Google Scholar
  2. Curry, H.: Some logical aspects of grammatical structure. In: Jakobson, R. (ed.) Structure of Language and Its Mathematical Aspects (1961)Google Scholar
  3. de Groote, P.: Towards Abstract Categorial Grammar. In: Proceedings of ACL (2001)Google Scholar
  4. Karttunen, L.: Syntax and semantics of questions. Linguistics and Philosophy 1, 1 (1977)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Kitagawa, Y.: Prosody, syntax and pragmatics of WH-questions. English Linguistics 22, 2 (2005) (in Japanese)Google Scholar
  6. Joachim, L., Scott, P.J.: Introduction to Higher Order Categorical Logic. Cambridge University Press (1986)Google Scholar
  7. Montague, R.: The proper treatment of quantification in English. In: Thomason, R. (ed.) Formal Philosophy: Selected Papers of Richard Montague, pp. 247–270. Yale University Press, New Haven (1974)Google Scholar
  8. Moortgat, M.: Generalized quantification and discontinuous type constructors. In: Bunt, H., van Horck, A. (eds.) Discontinuous Constituency. Mouton de Gruyter (1996)Google Scholar
  9. Moortgat, M.: Categorial type logics. In: van Benthem, J., ter Meulen, A. (eds.) Handbook of Logic and Language. Elsevier, Amsterdam (1997)Google Scholar
  10. Glyn, M., Fada, M., Valentin, O.: Nondeterministic discontinuous Lambek calculus. In: Proceedings of the Seventh International Workshop on Computational Semantics (IWCS 2007), Tilburg (2007)Google Scholar
  11. Muskens, R.: Language, lambdas, and logic. In: Kruijff, G.-J., Oehrle, R. (eds.) Resource Sensitivity in Binding and Anaphora. Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy. Kluwer (2003)Google Scholar
  12. Muskens, R.: Sense and the computation of reference. Linguistics and Philosophy 28, 4 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Muskens, R.: Intensional models for the theory of types. The Journal of Symbolic Logic 72, 1 (2007a)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Muskens, R.: Separating syntax and combinatorics in categorial grammar. Research on Language and Computation 5, 3 (2007b)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Nishigauchi, T.: Quantification in the Theory of Grammar. Kluwer, Dordrecht (1990)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Oehrle, R.: Term-labeled categorial type systems. Linguistics and Philosophy 17, 6 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Pollard, C.: Type-Logical HPSG. In: Jäger, G., Monachesi, P., Penn, G., Wintner, S. (eds.) Proceedings of Formal Grammar 2004, pp. 107–124. European Summer School in Language, Logic, and Information, Nancy (2004)Google Scholar
  18. Pollard, C.: Hyperintensions. Journal of Logic and Computation 18, 2 (2008a)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  19. Pollard, C.: Hyperintensional Questions. In: Hodges, W., de Queiroz, R. (eds.) WoLLic 2008. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 5110, pp. 272–285. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Smith, E.A.: Correlational Comparison in English. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Linguistics. The Ohio State University (2010)Google Scholar
  21. Takahashi, D.: Movement of WH-phrases in Japanese. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 11, 4 (1993)Google Scholar
  22. Thomason, R.: A model theory for propositional attitudes. Linguistics and Philosophy 4, 1 (1980)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Vermaat, W.: The Logic of Variation. A Cross-Linguistic Account of Wh-Question Formation. Ph.D. thesis. Utrecht Institute of Linguistics OTS, Utrecht University (2005)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Vedrana Mihaliček
    • 1
  • Carl Pollard
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of LinguisticsThe Ohio State UniversityColumbusUSA

Personalised recommendations