Contents 1 Introduction: grammatical reasoning 1 2 Linguistic inference: the Lambek systems 5 2.1 Modelinggrammaticalcomposition ............................ 5 2.2 Gentzen calculus, cut elimination and decidability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 2.3 Discussion: options for resource management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 3 The syntax-semantics interface: proofs and readings 16 3.1 Term assignment for categorial deductions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 3.2 Natural language interpretation: the deductive view . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 4 Grammatical composition: multimodal systems 26 4.1 Mixedinference:themodesofcomposition........................ 26 4.2 Grammaticalcomposition:unaryoperations ....................... 30 4.2.1 Unary connectives: logic and structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 4.2.2 Applications: imposing constraints, structural relaxation

Abstract not found

tem of rewrite rules or "productions" like (2), which have their origin in early work in recursion theory by Post, among others. (1) Dexter likes Warren. (2) S ! NP VP VP ! TV NP TV ! flikes;sees; : : :g Categorial Grammar (CG), together with its close cousin Dependency Grammar (which also originated in the 1950s, in work by Tesniere) stems from an alternative approach to context-free grammar pioneered by Bar-Hillel 1953 and Lambek 1958, with earlier antecedents in Ajdukiewicz 1935 and still earlier work by Husserl and Russell in category theory and the theory of types. Categorial Grammars capture the same information by associating a functional type or category with all grammatical entities. For example, all transitive verbs are associated via the lexicon with a category that can be written as follows: (3) likes := (SnNP)=NP The no

There have been several reports in the literature of faster visual lexical decisions to words that are semantically ambiguous. All current models of this ambiguity advantage assume that it is the presence of multiple unrelated meanings that produce this benefit. A set of three lexical decision experiments reported here challenge this assumption. We contrast the ambiguity seen in words like bark, which have multiple unrelated meanings, with words that have multiple related word senses (e.g., twist). In all three experiments we find that while multiple word senses do produce faster responses, ambiguity between multiple meanings delays recognition. These results suggest that, while competition between the multiple meanings of ambiguous words delays their recognition, the rich semantic representations associated with words with many senses facilitate their recognition. © 2002 Elsevier Science (USA) Key Words: lexical ambiguity; polysemy; distributed semantic representations. Many words are semantically ambiguous, and can refer to more than one concept. For example, bark can refer either to a part of a tree or to the sound made by a dog. To understand such words, we must select one of these different interpretations, normally on the basis of the context

We present a computational theory of the paragraph. Within it we formally define coherence, give semantics to the adversative conjunction "but " and to the Gricean maxim of quantity, and present some new methods for anaphora resolution. The theory precisely characterizes the relationship between the content of the paragraph and background knowledge needed for its understanding. This is achieved by introducing a new type of logical theory consisting of an object level, corresponding to the content of the paragraph, a referential level, which is a new logical level encoding background knowledge, and a metalevel containing constraints on models of discourse (e.g. a formal version of Gricean maxims). We propose also specific mechanisms of interaction between these levels, resembling both classical provability and abduction. Paragraphs are then represented by a class of structures called p-models. 1.

this paper we will demonstrate that a formalization of its content reveals very little substance in its claims. We state and discuss six conditions that encapsulate the claims of X-bar theory:

One problem for the generation of natural language text is determining when to use a sequence of simple sentences and when a single complex one is more appropriate. In this paper, we show how focus of attention is one factor that influences this decision and describe its implementation in a system that generates explanations for a student advisor expert system. The implementation uses tests on functional information such as focus of attention within the Prolog definite clause grammar formalism to determine when to use complex sentences, resulting in an efficient generator that has the same benefits as a functional grammar system.

A bi-polar theory of the structure and function of nominals and clauses is presented in which a specifier, functioning as a referential pole, and a head, functioning as a relational pole, combine to form a referring expression. The theory applies to both object referring expressions, in the case of nominals, and situation referring expressions, in the case of clauses. The bi-polar theory is contrasted with X-Bar Theory—a uni-polar theory in which the head uniquely determines the type of the larger expression in which it occurs. Uni-polar theories adopt a strong notion of endocentricity, which is rejected in the bi-polar theory, where both the specifier and the head make significant and meaningful contributions to the larger expressions in which they occur. The bi-polar theory is also contrasted with Langacker’s conception of the basic structure and function of nominals and clauses.

In the present paper, the concept of vagueness will be taken up in detail, in order to make it more precise and to pin down its relevance for translation. In addition to view (some) translation choices as contrastive vagueness, I will argue that grammar too has to be contrasted, introducing the concepts of grammatical vagueness and contrastive grammatical vagueness. The problems these phenomena pose for translation are illustrated in the realm of tense and aspect with real translation pairs from (American) English to (European) Portuguese. Key words translation, contrastive studies, tense, aspect, Portuguese, English Introduction It is common to read that, if there is no corresponding vague term in the target language, the translator has a problem, or, at least, s/he may have to choose a particular translation on grounds which are not objective. This idea is connected to the classical explanation that different languages cut different pieces of reality (see, for example, Lyons (1968:...

this paper. 25 However, one feature of it relevant to the construction of the utterance being examined in this paper will be briefly noted. A speaker can request the gaze of a recipient by producing a phrasal break, such as a restart or a pause, in his utterance. After such a phrasal break nongazing recipients regularly bring their gaze to the speaker