1,989 research outputs found
Type-driven semantic interpretation and feature dependencies in R-LFG
Once one has enriched LFG's formal machinery with the linear logic mechanisms
needed for semantic interpretation as proposed by Dalrymple et. al., it is
natural to ask whether these make any existing components of LFG redundant. As
Dalrymple and her colleagues note, LFG's f-structure completeness and coherence
constraints fall out as a by-product of the linear logic machinery they propose
for semantic interpretation, thus making those f-structure mechanisms
redundant. Given that linear logic machinery or something like it is
independently needed for semantic interpretation, it seems reasonable to
explore the extent to which it is capable of handling feature structure
constraints as well.
R-LFG represents the extreme position that all linguistically required
feature structure dependencies can be captured by the resource-accounting
machinery of a linear or similiar logic independently needed for semantic
interpretation, making LFG's unification machinery redundant. The goal is to
show that LFG linguistic analyses can be expressed as clearly and perspicuously
using the smaller set of mechanisms of R-LFG as they can using the much larger
set of unification-based mechanisms in LFG: if this is the case then we will
have shown that positing these extra f-structure mechanisms is not
linguistically warranted.Comment: 30 pages, to appear in the the ``Glue Language'' volume edited by
Dalrymple, uses tree-dvips, ipa, epic, eepic, fullnam
Comparing and evaluating extended Lambek calculi
Lambeks Syntactic Calculus, commonly referred to as the Lambek calculus, was
innovative in many ways, notably as a precursor of linear logic. But it also
showed that we could treat our grammatical framework as a logic (as opposed to
a logical theory). However, though it was successful in giving at least a basic
treatment of many linguistic phenomena, it was also clear that a slightly more
expressive logical calculus was needed for many other cases. Therefore, many
extensions and variants of the Lambek calculus have been proposed, since the
eighties and up until the present day. As a result, there is now a large class
of calculi, each with its own empirical successes and theoretical results, but
also each with its own logical primitives. This raises the question: how do we
compare and evaluate these different logical formalisms? To answer this
question, I present two unifying frameworks for these extended Lambek calculi.
Both are proof net calculi with graph contraction criteria. The first calculus
is a very general system: you specify the structure of your sequents and it
gives you the connectives and contractions which correspond to it. The calculus
can be extended with structural rules, which translate directly into graph
rewrite rules. The second calculus is first-order (multiplicative
intuitionistic) linear logic, which turns out to have several other,
independently proposed extensions of the Lambek calculus as fragments. I will
illustrate the use of each calculus in building bridges between analyses
proposed in different frameworks, in highlighting differences and in helping to
identify problems.Comment: Empirical advances in categorial grammars, Aug 2015, Barcelona,
Spain. 201
The price of inscrutability
In our reasoning we depend on the stability of language, the fact that its signs do not arbitrarily change in meaning from moment to moment.(Campbell, 1994, p.82)
Some philosophers offer arguments contending that ordinary names such as âLondonâ are radically indeterminate in reference. The conclusion of such arguments is that there is no fact of the matter whether âLondonâ refers to a city in the south of England, or whether instead it refers to
Sydney, Australia. Some philosophers have even suggested that we accept the conclusion of these arguments.
Such a position seems crazy to many; but what exactly goes wrong if one adopts such a view? This paper evaluates the theoretical costs incurred by one who endorses extreme inscrutability of reference (the âinscrutabilistâ). I show that there is one particular implication of extreme
inscrutability which pushes the price of inscrutabilism too high. An extension of the classic âpermutationâ arguments for extreme inscrutability allow us to establish what I dub âextreme indexical inscrutabilityâ. This result, I argue, unacceptably undermines the epistemology of inference.
The first half of the paper develops the background of permutation arguments for extreme inscrutability
of reference and evaluates some initial attempts to make trouble for the inscrutabilist.
Sections 1 and 2 describe the setting of the original permutation arguments for extreme inscrutability.
Sections 3 and 4 survey four potential objections to extreme inscrutability of reference,
including some recently raised in Vann McGeeâs excellent (2005a). Sections 5 sketches how the permutation arguments can be generalized to establish extreme indexical inscrutability; and shows how this contradicts a âstability principleââthat our words do not arbitrarily
change their reference from one moment to the nextâwhich I claim plays a vital role in the epistemology of inference.
The second half of the paper develops in detail the case for thinking that language is stable
in the relevant sense. In section 6, I use this distinction to call into question the epistemological
relevance of validity of argument types; Kaplanâs treatment of indexical validity partially resolves this worry, but there is a residual problem. In section 7, I argue that stability is exactly what is needed to bridge this final gap, and so secure the relevance of validity to good inferential practice. Section 8 responds to objections to this claim.
An appendix to the paper provides formal backing for the results cited in this paper, including a generalization of permutation arguments to the kind of rich setting required for a realistic semantics of natural language.1 Extreme indexical inscrutability results can be proved within
this setting. The first half of the paper shows that the inscrutabilist is committed to extreme indexical inscrutability, which implies that language not determinately âstableâ. The second half of the paper argues that good inference requires stability. The price of inscrutabilism, therefore, is to sever the connection between the validity of argument-forms and inferential practice: and this is too high a price to pay
- âŠ