DMCA
Words as Modules: a Lexicalised Grammar in the framework of Linear Logic Proof-nets (1997)
| Venue: | Mathematical and Computational Analysis of Natural Language --- selected papers from ICML`96, volume 45 of Studies in Functional and Structural Linguistics |
| Citations: | 5 - 2 self |
BibTeX
@INPROCEEDINGS{Lecomte97wordsas,
author = {Alain Lecomte and Christian Retore},
title = {Words as Modules: a Lexicalised Grammar in the framework of Linear Logic Proof-nets},
booktitle = {Mathematical and Computational Analysis of Natural Language --- selected papers from ICML`96, volume 45 of Studies in Functional and Structural Linguistics},
year = {1997},
pages = {129--144},
publisher = {John Benjamins publishing company}
}
Share
 |
 |
 |
 |
||
OpenURL
Abstract
In this paper we describe the principles of a syntactic calculus whose building blocks are partial proof-nets or modules. The main idea is to associate with each lexical item one or more modules which encode(s) its syntactic behaviour. The simplest of these modules are obtained by unfolding the components of formulae that would be the type(s) of the lexical items in a type-logical grammar a la Morrill (1994), while the more sophisticated ones really go beyond the usual type-logical approach. The syntactic analysis within such a paradigm consists in combining these modules into a complete proof-net by a uniform set of plugging rules. This approach is related to the Partial Proof-Trees as building blocks of a categorial grammar of Joshi and Kulick (1995), the main difference being the emphasis put on the geometric notion of Proof-Net as in our first attempt (Lecomte and Retore 1995). Our main motivation is to obtain a general logical model in which it would be possible to embed other calculi like Lambek grammars on one side and Lexicalised Tree Adjoining Grammars on the other side. The Lambek calculus is a very elegant syntactic calculus because it is a pure WORDS AS MODULES logical calculus enjoying all the properties one can expect: cut-elimination, denotational semantics, truth valued semantics. This is also the reason why it allows a very simple interface with Montagovian semantics. Unfortunately, it suffers from many limitations when applied to linguistic descriptions: for instance it does not handle head-wrapping, cross serial dependencies, right extraction, extraposition from a non-peripheral site etc. On the other side, the LTAG model provides us with a very efficient model which succeeds in many cases where the Lambek calculus fails. But, because some problems are...
Keyphrases
lexicalised grammar linear logic proof-nets building block lexical item first attempt categorial grammar uniform set right extraction la morrill simple interface non-peripheral site etc denotational semantics general logical model ltag model usual type-logical approach sophisticated one many case linguistic description tree adjoining grammar syntactic analysis syntactic behaviour syntactic calculus lambek calculus fails complete proof-net elegant syntactic calculus cross serial dependency partial proof-nets geometric notion main idea lambek calculus pure word module logical calculus efficient model main motivation type-logical grammar many limitation montagovian semantics partial proof-trees main difference lambek grammar
