The Grail theorem prover: Type theory for syntax and semantics

As the name suggests, type-logical grammars are a grammar formalism based on logic and type theory. From the prespective of grammar design, type-logical grammars develop the syntactic and semantic aspects of linguistic phenomena hand-in-hand, letting the desired semantics of an expression inform the syntactic type and vice versa. Prototypical examples of the successful application of type-logical grammars to the syntax-semantics interface include coordination, quantifier scope and extraction.This chapter describes the Grail theorem prover, a series of tools for designing and testing grammars in various modern type-logical grammars which functions as a tool . All tools described in this chapter are freely available

Interaction Grammars

Interaction Grammar (IG) is a grammatical formalism based on the notion of polarity. Polarities express the resource sensitivity of natural languages by modelling the distinction between saturated and unsaturated syntactic structures. Syntactic composition is represented as a chemical reaction guided by the saturation of polarities. It is expressed in a model-theoretic framework where grammars are constraint systems using the notion of tree description and parsing appears as a process of building tree description models satisfying criteria of saturation and minimality

Higher-order Linear Logic Programming of Categorial Deduction

We show how categorial deduction can be implemented in higher-order (linear) logic programming, thereby realising parsing as deduction for the associative and non-associative Lambek calculi. This provides a method of solution to the parsing problem of Lambek categorial grammar applicable to a variety of its extensions.Comment: 8 pages LaTeX, uses eaclap.sty, to appear EACL9

Semantic Types, Lexical Sorts and Classifiers

We propose a cognitively and linguistically motivated set of sorts for lexical semantics in a compositional setting: the classifiers in languages that do have such pronouns. These sorts are needed to include lexical considerations in a semantical analyser such as Boxer or Grail. Indeed, all proposed lexical extensions of usual Montague semantics to model restriction of selection, felicitous and infelicitous copredication require a rich and refined type system whose base types are the lexical sorts, the basis of the many-sorted logic in which semantical representations of sentences are stated. However, none of those approaches define precisely the actual base types or sorts to be used in the lexicon. In this article, we shall discuss some of the options commonly adopted by researchers in formal lexical semantics, and defend the view that classifiers in the languages which have such pronouns are an appealing solution, both linguistically and cognitively motivated

Learnability of type-logical grammars

AbstractA procedure for learning a lexical assignment together with a system of syntactic and semantic categories given a fixed type-logical grammar is briefly described. The logic underlying the grammar can be any cut-free decidable modally enriched extension of the Lambek calculus, but the correspondence between syntactic and semantic categories must be constrained so that no infinite set of categories is ultimately used to generate the language. It is shown that under these conditions various linguistically valuable subsets of the range of the algorithm are classes identifiable in the limit from data consisting of sentences labeled by simply typed lambda calculus meaning terms in normal form. The entire range of the algorithm is shown to be not a learnable class, contrary to a mistaken result reported in a preliminary version of this paper. It is informally argued that, given the right type logic, the learnable classes of grammars include members which generate natural languages, and thus that natural languages are learnable in this way

Parsing With Lexicalized Tree Adjoining Grammar

Most current linguistic theories give lexical accounts of several phenomena that used to be considered purely syntactic. The information put in the lexicon is thereby increased in both amount and complexity: see, for example, lexical rules in LFG (Kaplan and Bresnan, 1983), GPSG (Gazdar, Klein, Pullum and Sag, 1985), HPSG (Pollard and Sag, 1987), Combinatory Categorial Grammars (Steedman, 1987), Karttunen\u27s version of Categorial Grammar (Karttunen 1986, 1988), some versions of GB theory (Chomsky 1981), and Lexicon-Grammars (Gross 1984). We would like to take into account this fact while defining a formalism. We therefore explore the view that syntactical rules are not separated from lexical items. We say that a grammar is lexicalized (Schabes, AbeilK and Joshi, 1988) if it consists of: (1) a finite set of structures each associated with lexical items; each lexical item will be called the anchor of the corresponding structure; the structures define the domain of locality over which constraints are specified; (2) an operation or operations for composing the structures. The notion of anchor is closely related to the word associated with a functor-argument category in Categorial Grammars. Categorial Grammar (as used for example by Steedman, 1987) are \u27lexicalized\u27 according to our definition since each basic category has a lexical item associated with it