Abstract not found

This ESSLLI workshop is devoted to connecting the linguistic use of resource logics and categorial grammar to minimalist grammars and related generative grammars. Minimalist grammars are relatively recent, and although they stem from a long tradition of work in transformational grammar, they are largely informal apart from a few research papers. The study of resource logics, on the other hand, is formal and stems naturally from a long logical tradition. So although there appear to be promising connections between these traditions, there is at this point a rather thin intersection between them. The papers in this workshop are consequently rather diverse, some addressing general similarities between the two traditions, and others concentrating on a thorough study of a particular point. Nevertheless they succeed in convincing us of the continuing interest of studying and developing the relationship between the minimalist program and resource logics. This introduction reviews some of the basic issues and prior literature. 1 The interest of a convergence What would be the interest of a convergence between resource logical investigations of

Abstract. This paper extends Lambek’s pregroup grammars in a way designed to facilitate comparison with proposals in the tradition of Chomskian syntax. Instead of categorizing expressions with sequences of pregroup terms, we use tuples of sequences of terms and define basic operations on tuples. Then we can define non-context free languages and realize some recent syntactic analyses quite straightforwardly. The pregroup operations provide a simple ‘feature checking ’ and the tupling allows operations rather like ‘movement’. A certain kind of tupled pregroup grammar (mTPG) is ‘mildly context sensitive’, in Joshi’s sense, and seems to allow quite natural analyses for ‘head movement’, ‘pied piping ’ and ‘remnant movement ’ constructions, avoiding special, ad hoc mechanisms. Constituent combination is treated in classical categorial grammar as kind of non-associative product, and there is no corresponding division operation (Bar-Hillel, 1953). Lambek noticed that associativity and division are easily added (Lambek, 1958), but the resulting calculus is rather complex: even the proof that it defines exactly the (ɛ-free)

Abstract not found

Abstract not found