Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Propositional glue and the projection architecture of LFG

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Linguistics and Philosophy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Although ‘glue semantics’ is the most extensively developed theory of semantic composition for LFG, it is not very well integrated into the LFG projection architecture, due to the absence of a simple and well-explained correspondence between glue-proofs and f-structures. In this paper I will show that we can improve this situation with two steps: (1) Replace the current quantificational formulations of glue (either Girard’s system F, or first order linear logic) with strictly propositional linear logic (the quantifier, unit and exponential free version of either MILL or ILL, depending on whether or not tensors are used). (2) Reverse the direction of the standard σ-projection from f-structure to meaning, giving one going from the (atomic nodes of) the glue-proof to the f-structure, rather than from the f-structure to a ‘semantic projection’ which is itself somehow related to the glue-proof. As a side effect, the standard semantic projection of LFG glue semantics can be dispensed with. A result is that LFG sentence structures acquire a level composed of strictly binary trees, constructed out of nodes representing function application and lambda abstraction, with a significant resemblance to external and internal merge in the Minimalist Program. This increased resemblance between frameworks might assist in making useful comparisons.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alsina A. (1996) The role of argument structure in grammar. CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA

    Google Scholar 

  • Andrews A.D. (1982) The representation of case in modern Icelandic. In: Bresnan J. (Ed.) The mental representation of grammatical relations. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Andrews A.D. (1990) Case-structures and control in modern Icelandic. In: Maling J., Zaenen A. (eds) Modern Icelandic syntax. Academic Press, San Diego, CA, pp 187–234

    Google Scholar 

  • Andrews A.D. (1996) Semantic case-stacking and inside-out unification. Australian Journal of Linguistics 16(1): 1–55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andrews A.D. (2007a) Generating the input in OT-LFG. In: Grimshaw J., Maling J., Manning C., Zaenen A. (eds) Architectures, rules, and preferences: A festschrift for Joan Bresnan. CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA, pp 319–340

    Google Scholar 

  • Andrews A.D. (2007b) Glue semantics for clause-union complex predicates. In: Butt M., King T.H. (eds) The proceedings of the LFG ’07 conference. CSLI Publications, Stanford CA, pp 44–65

    Google Scholar 

  • Andrews, A. D. (2007c). Glue semantics for clause-union complex predicates. In M. Butt & T. H. King (Eds.), The proceedings of the LFG ’07 conference (pp. 44–65). Stanford CA: CSLI Publications. Retrieved November 15, 2010, from http://cslipublications.stanford.edu/LFG/12/lfg07.html (accessed Feb 19, 2010).

  • Andrews A.D., Manning C.D. (1999) Complex predicates and information spreading in LFG. CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA

    Google Scholar 

  • Asudeh A. (2001) Linking, optionality and ambiguity in Marathi. In: Sells P. (Ed.) Formal and empirical issues in optimality-theoretic syntax. CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA, pp 257–312

    Google Scholar 

  • Asudeh, A. (2004). Resumption as resource management. Ph.D. thesis, Stanford University, Stanford, CA. Retrieved November 15, 2010, from http://http-server.carleton.ca/~asudeh/.

  • Asudeh A. (2005a) Control and resource sensitivity. Journal of Linguistics 41: 465–511

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Asudeh A. (2005b) Relational nouns, pronouns and resumption. Linguistics and Philosophy 28: 375–446

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Asudeh A. (2006) Direct compositionality and the architecture of LFG. In: Butt M., Dalrymple M., King T.H. (eds) Intelligent linguistic architectures: Variations on themes by Ronald M. Kaplan. CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA, pp 363–387

    Google Scholar 

  • Asudeh, A., & Crouch, R. (2002). Derivational parallelism and ellipsis parallelism. In L. Mikkelsen & C. Potts (Eds.), WCCFL 21 proceedings (pp. 1–14). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press. Retrieved November 15, 2010, from http://http-server.carleton.ca/~asudeh/research/index.html.

  • Asudeh, A., & Toivonen, I. (2009). Copy-raising and perception. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory. Restrieved November 15, 2009, from http://http-server.carleton.ca/~asudeh/ (to appear).

  • Baez, J., & Stay, M. (2011). Physics, topology, logic and computation: A rosetta stone. In B. Coecke (Ed.), New structures for physics (pp. 95–168). Berlin: Springer. Retrieved November 17, 2010, from http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/rosetta.pdf.

  • Benton, N., Bierman, G. M., Hyland, J. M. E., & de Paiva, V. (1992). Term assignment for intuitionistic linear logic. Technical report. Retrieved November 15, 2010, from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.31.8666.

  • Benton, N., Biermann, G., de Paiva, V., & Hyland, M. (1993). A term calculus for intuitionistic linear logic. In M. Bezem & J. F. Groote (Eds.), Proceedings of the international conference on typed lambda calculi and applications, TLCA’93, Utrecht, The Netherlands, 16–18 March 1993 (Vol. 664, pp. 75–90). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

  • Bresnan J.W. (2001) Lexical-functional syntax. Blackwell, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Crouch R.: (2006) Packed rewriting for mapping text to semantics and KR. In: Butt M., Dalrymple M., King T.H. (eds) Intelligent linguistic architectures: Variations on a theme by Ronald M. Kaplan. CSLI Publications, Stanford CA, pp 389–416

    Google Scholar 

  • Crouch R., King T.H. (2006) Semantics via F-structure rewriting. In: Butt M., King T. (eds) Proceedings of LFG 2006. CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA

    Google Scholar 

  • Crouch R., van Genabith J. (1999) Context change, underspecification, and the structure of glue language derivations. In: Dalrymple M. (Ed.) Syntax and semantics in lexical functional grammar: The resource-logic approach. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp 117–189

    Google Scholar 

  • Culicover P.W., Jackendoff R.S. (2005) Simpler syntax. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Dalrymple, M. (Ed.) (1999) Syntax and semantics in lexical functional grammar: The resource-logic approach. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Dalrymple M. (2001) Lexical functional grammar. Academic Press, San Diego, CA

    Google Scholar 

  • Dalrymple, M., Gupta, V., Lamping, J., & Saraswat, V. (1999). Relating resource based semantics to categorial semantics (pp. 261–280). Earlier version published in Proceedings of the fifth meeting on the mathematics of language, Saarbucken (1995).

  • Dalrymple, M., Kaplan, R. M., Maxwell, J. T., & Zaenen, A. (Eds.). (1995). Formal issues in lexical-functional grammar. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. Retrieved November 15, 2010, from http://standish.stanford.edu/bin/detail?fileID=457314864.

  • Dalrymple, M., Lamping, J., Pereira, F., & Saraswat, V. (1997). Quantification, anaphora and intensionality. Logic, Language and Information, 6, 219–273. Appears with some modifications in Dalrymple (1999), pp. 39–90.

  • Dalrymple M.E. (1993) The syntax of anaphoric binding. The Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford, CA

    Google Scholar 

  • de Groote, P. (1999). An algebraic correctness criterion for intuitionistic multiplicative proof-nets. Theoretical Computer Science, 224, 115–134. Retrieved November 15, 2010, from http://www.loria.fr/~degroote/bibliography.html.

  • de Groote, P., & Retor’e, C. (1996). On the semantic reading of proof-nets. In G. G.-J. Kruijff & D. Oehrle (Eds.), Formal grammar (pp. 57–70). Prague: FOLLI. http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/degroote96semantic.html.

  • Deal, A. R. (2007). Property-type objects and modal embedding. In A. Grnn (Ed.), Proceedings of SuB 12 (pp. 92–106). Oslo: Department of Literature, Area Studies and European Languages, University of Oslo. Retrieved November 17, 2010, from http://www.hf.uio.no/ilos/forskning/aktuelt/arrangementer/konferanser-seminarer/2007/SuB12/proceedings/.

  • Fry J. (1999) Proof nets and negative polarity licensing. In: Dalrymple M. (Ed.) Syntax and semantics in lexical functional grammar: The resource-logic approach. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 91–116

    Google Scholar 

  • Girard, J.-Y., Lafont, Y., & Taylor, P. (1989). Proofs and types. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Retrieved November 15, 2010, from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.85.5358&rep=rep1&type=pdf.

  • Hahm, H.-J., & Wechsler, S. (2007). Untangling the Russian predicate agreement knot. In M. Butt & T. H. King (Eds.), The proceedings of the LFG ’07 conference (pp. 233–249). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. Retrieved 15 November, 2010, from http://cslipublications.stanford.edu/LFG/12/lfg07.html.

  • Hindley R. (1993) BCK and BCI logics, condensed detachment and the 2-property. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 34: 231–250

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hindley R., Meredith D. (1990) Principal type-schemes and condensed detachment. Journal of Symbolic Logic 55: 90–105

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackendoff, R. S. (1972). Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. MIT Press. Extensive revision of 1969 MIT dissertation.

  • Jackendoff R.S. (2002) Foundations of language. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobson P. (1999) Towards a variable-free semantics. Linguistics and Philosophy 22: 117–184

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobson P. (2002) The (dis)organization of the grammar: 25 years. Linguistics and Philosophy 25: 601–626

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobson P. (2005) Direct compositionality and variable-free semantics: The case of ‘principle b’ effects. In: Barker C., Jacobson P. (eds) Direct compositionality. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Jäger G. (2005) Anaphora and type logical grammar. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaśkowski S. (1963) Über Tautologien, in welchen keine Variable mehr als zweimal vorkommt. Zeitschrift für Mathematische Logik und Grundlagen der Mathematik 9: 219–228

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan, R., & Bresnan, J. (1982). Lexical-functional grammar: A formal system for grammatical representation. In J. Bresnan (Ed.), The mental representation of grammatical relations. Also in Dalrymple et al. (Eds.), 1995 Formal issus in lexical-functional grammar. CSLI Publications; page number references to 1982 version.

  • Kaplan, R. M. (1987). Three seductions of computational psycholinguistics. In P. Whitelock, M. M.Wood, H. Somers, R. Johnson, & P. Bennet (Eds.), Linguistics and computer applications. Academic Press, pp. 149–188. (Reprinted from Formal issues in lexical-functional grammar, pp. 337–367, by Dalrymple et al., 1995, Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.)

  • Kaplan R.M. (1995) The formal architecture of LFG. In: Dalrymple M., Kaplan R.M., Maxwell J.T., Zaenen A. (eds) Formal issues in lexical-functional grammar. CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA, pp 7–27

    Google Scholar 

  • King T.H., Dalrymple M. (2004) Determiner agreement and noun conjunction. Journal of Linguistics 40: 69–104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kokkonidis M. (2005) Why glue a donkey to an F-structure when you can constrain and bind it instead. In: Butt M., King T. (eds) Proceedings of LFG 2005. CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA

    Google Scholar 

  • Kokkonidis M. (2008) First order glue. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 17: 43–68

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kroeger, P. (1993). Phrase-structure and grammatical relations in Tagalog. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. Originally Stanford University Ph.D. Dissertation, 1991.

  • Kuhn J. (2003) Optimality-theoretic syntax—a declarative approach. CSLI Publications, Stanford CA

    Google Scholar 

  • Lamarche, F. (1994). Proof nets for intuitionistic linear logic 1: Essential nets. Technical Report, Imperial College, London.

  • Lambek J. (2008) From word to sentence. Polimetrica, Milan

    Google Scholar 

  • Lev, I. (2007). Packed computation of exact meaning representations using glue semantics (with automatic handling of structural ambiguities and advanced natural language constructions). Ph.D. thesis, Stanford University. Retrieved November 15, 2010, from http://sites.google.com/site/pulcproject/material.

  • Mackie I., Rom’an L., Abramsky S. (1993) An internal language for autonomous categories. Applied Categorical Structures 1: 311–343

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manning, C. D. (1996). Ergativity: Argument structure and grammatical relations. Stanford CA: CSLI Publications. Originally Stanford Ph.D. Dissertation, 1994.

  • Marantz A. (1984) On the nature of grammatical relations. MIT Press, Cambridge MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Moot, R. (2002). Proof-nets for linguistic analysis. Ph.D. thesis, University of Utecht. Retrieved November 15, 2010, from http://www.labri.fr/perso/moot/ and http://igitur-archive.library.uu.nl/dissertations/1980438/full.pdf.

  • Morrill G. (2005) Geometry of language and linguistic circuitry. In: Casadio C., Scott P.J., Seely R. (eds) Language and grammar. CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA, pp 237–264

    Google Scholar 

  • Nordlinger R. (1998) Constructive case. CSLI Publications, Stanford CA

    Google Scholar 

  • Nordlinger R., Sadler L. (2004) Tense beyond the verb: Encoding clausal tense/aspect/mood on nominal dependents. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 22: 597–641

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Partee, B. H. (2006). Do we need two basic types. In H.-M. Gaertner, R. Eckardt, R. Musan, & B. Stiebels (Eds.), Puzzles for Manfred Krifka. Berlin.

  • Perrier G. (1999) Labelled proof-nets for the syntax and semantics of natural languages. L.G. of the IGPL 7: 629–655

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prior A.N. (1963) Formal logic. Clarendon, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Simpson J., Bresnan J. (1983) Control and obviation in Warlpiri. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 1: 49–64

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simpson, J. H. (1983). Aspects of Warlpiri morphology and syntax. Ph.D. thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Mostly superseded by Simpson (1991) Warlpiri morpho-syntax. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.

  • Simpson J.H. (1991) Warlpiri morpho-syntax. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Tatsuta M. (1993) Uniqueness of normal proofs of minimal formulas. Journal of Symbolic Logic 58: 789–799

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Troelstra A.S. (1992) Lectures on linear logic. CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA

    Google Scholar 

  • Wechsler, S. (2004). Number as person. In O. Bonami & P. C. Hofherr (Eds.), Empirical issues in syntax and semantics 5 (on-line proceedings of the fifth syntax and semantics conference in Paris) (pp. 255–274). Retrieved November 15, 2010, from http://www.cssp.cnrs.fr/eiss5/ and http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~wechsler/NumberAsPerson.pdf.

  • Wechsler S., Zlatić L. (2003) The many faces of agreement. CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The Australian National University, Canberra, ACT, 0200, Australia

    Avery D. Andrews

Authors
  1. Avery D. Andrews
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Avery D. Andrews.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Andrews, A.D. Propositional glue and the projection architecture of LFG. Linguist and Philos 33, 141–170 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-010-9079-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-010-9079-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation