Results 1  10
of
120
Categorial Type Logics
 Handbook of Logic and Language
, 1997
"... 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 mana ..."
Abstract

Cited by 299 (6 self)
 Add to MetaCart
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 syntaxsemantics 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
A Compositional Semantics for Multiple Focus Constructions
 In: Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistics Theory (SALT) I. Cornell Working Papers in Linguistics 10
, 1991
"... The subject of this article is the semantics of focus, i.e. the development of a framework in which we can formulate the influence of focus on the semantic and pragmatic interpretation. In section (1), I will discuss such a framework, structured meanings. In section (2), I will point out some of its ..."
Abstract

Cited by 177 (8 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
The subject of this article is the semantics of focus, i.e. the development of a framework in which we can formulate the influence of focus on the semantic and pragmatic interpretation. In section (1), I will discuss such a framework, structured meanings. In section (2), I will point out some of its shortcomings, as it is currently worked outi they have to do with cases
The Equivalence Of Four Extensions Of ContextFree Grammars
 Mathematical Systems Theory
, 1994
"... There is currently considerable interest among computational linguists in grammatical formalisms with highly restricted generative power. This paper concerns the relationship between the class of string languages generated by several such formalisms viz. Combinatory Categorial Grammars, Head Grammar ..."
Abstract

Cited by 96 (5 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
There is currently considerable interest among computational linguists in grammatical formalisms with highly restricted generative power. This paper concerns the relationship between the class of string languages generated by several such formalisms viz. Combinatory Categorial Grammars, Head Grammars, Linear Indexed Grammars and Tree Adjoining Grammars. Each of these formalisms is known to generate a larger class of languages than ContextFree Grammars. The four formalisms under consideration were developed independently and appear superficially to be quite different from one another. The result presented in this paper is that all four of the formalisms under consideration generate exactly the same class of string languages. 1 Introduction There is currently considerable interest among computational linguists in grammatical formalisms with highly restricted generative power. This is based on the argument that a grammar formalism should not merely be viewed as a notation, but as part o...
Categorial Unification Grammars
, 1986
"... Categorial unification grammars (CUGs) embody the essential properties of both unification and categorial grammar formalisms. Their efficient and uniform way of encoding linguistic knowledge in wellunderstood and widely used representations inakes them attractive for computational applications and ..."
Abstract

Cited by 88 (2 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Categorial unification grammars (CUGs) embody the essential properties of both unification and categorial grammar formalisms. Their efficient and uniform way of encoding linguistic knowledge in wellunderstood and widely used representations inakes them attractive for computational applications and for linguistic research.
Parsing Some Constrained Grammar Formalisms
 Computational Linguistics
, 1994
"... this paper we present a scheme to extend a recognition algorithm for ContextFree Grammars (CFG) that can be used to derive polynomialtime recognition algorithms for a set of formalisms that generate a superset of languages generated by CFG. We describe the scheme by developing a CockeKasamiYoung ..."
Abstract

Cited by 62 (6 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
this paper we present a scheme to extend a recognition algorithm for ContextFree Grammars (CFG) that can be used to derive polynomialtime recognition algorithms for a set of formalisms that generate a superset of languages generated by CFG. We describe the scheme by developing a CockeKasamiYounger (CKY)like pure bottomup recognition algorithm for Linear Indexed Grammars and show how it can be adapted to give algorithms for Tree Adjoining Grammars and Combinatory Categorial Grammars. This is the only polynomialtime recognition algorithm for Combinatory Categorial Grammars that we are aware of
Toward a minimalist theory of syntactic structure
 Discontinuous Constituency
, 1996
"... No assumption is more fundamental in the theory (and practice) of syntax than that natural languages should always be described in terms of constituent structure, at least wherever possible. To be sure, certain kinds of cases are wellknown where constituent structure of the familiar sort runs into ..."
Abstract

Cited by 59 (0 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
No assumption is more fundamental in the theory (and practice) of syntax than that natural languages should always be described in terms of constituent structure, at least wherever possible. To be sure, certain kinds of cases are wellknown where constituent structure of the familiar sort runs into problems, e.g.
A SemanticHeadDriven Generation Algorithm for UnificationBased Formalisms
 IN 27TH ANNUAL MEETING OF THE ASSOCIATION FOR COMPUTATIONAL LINGUISTICS
, 1989
"... We present an algorithm for generating strings from logical form encodings that improves upon previous algorithms in that it places fewer restrictions on the class of grammars to which it is applicable. In particular, unlike an Earley deduction generator (Shieber, 1988), it allows use of semanticall ..."
Abstract

Cited by 45 (8 self)
 Add to MetaCart
We present an algorithm for generating strings from logical form encodings that improves upon previous algorithms in that it places fewer restrictions on the class of grammars to which it is applicable. In particular, unlike an Earley deduction generator (Shieber, 1988), it allows use of semantically nonmonotonic grammars, yet unlike topdown methods, it also permits leftrecursion. The enabling design feature of the algorithm is its implicit traversal of the analysis tree for the string being generated in a semanticheaddriven fashion.