Paracompositionality, MWEs and Argument Substitution

Multi-word expressions, verb-particle constructions, idiomatically combining phrases, and phrasal idioms have something in common: not all of their elements contribute to the argument structure of the predicate implicated by the expression. Radically lexicalized theories of grammar that avoid string-, term-, logical form-, and tree-writing, and categorial grammars that avoid wrap operation, make predictions about the categories involved in verb-particles and phrasal idioms. They may require singleton types, which can only substitute for one value, not just for one kind of value. These types are asymmetric: they can be arguments only. They also narrowly constrain the kind of semantic value that can correspond to such syntactic categories. Idiomatically combining phrases do not subcategorize for singleton types, and they exploit another locally computable and compositional property of a correspondence, that every syntactic expression can project its head word. Such MWEs can be seen as empirically realized categorial possibilities, rather than lacuna in a theory of lexicalizable syntactic categories.Comment: accepted version (pre-final) for 23rd Formal Grammar Conference, August 2018, Sofi

A Multi-Modal Analysis of Anaphora and Ellipsis

193

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

Two Types of Complex Predicate Formation: Japanese Passive and Potential Verbs

PACLIC 21 / Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea / November 1-3, 200

A Frobenius Algebraic Analysis for Parasitic Gaps

The interpretation of parasitic gaps is an ostensible case of non-linearity in natural language composition. Existing categorial analyses, both in the typelogical and in the combinatory traditions, rely on explicit forms of syntactic copying. We identify two types of parasitic gapping where the duplication of semantic content can be confined to the lexicon. Parasitic gaps in adjuncts are analysed as forms of generalized coordination with a polymorphic type schema for the head of the adjunct phrase. For parasitic gaps affecting arguments of the same predicate, the polymorphism is associated with the lexical item that introduces the primary gap. Our analysis is formulated in terms of Lambek calculus extended with structural control modalities. A compositional translation relates syntactic types and derivations to the interpreting compact closed category of finite dimensional vector spaces and linear maps with Frobenius algebras over it. When interpreted over the necessary semantic spaces, the Frobenius algebras provide the tools to model the proposed instances of lexical polymorphism.Comment: SemSpace 2019, to appear in Journal of Applied Logic

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