Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Title
Abstract
Key Takeaways
Figures
Introduction
Methods of Lexical Decomposition
Conclusion
References

Type Theory and Lexical Decomposition

Profile image of James PUSTEJOVSKYJames PUSTEJOVSKY

2012, Text, Speech and Language Technology

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5189-7_2
visibility

…

description

38 pages

link

1 file

Abstract

In this paper, I explore the relation between methods of lexical representation involving decomposition and the theory of types as used in linguistics and programming semantics. I identify two major approaches to lexical decomposition in grammar, what I call parametric and predicative strategies. I demonstrate how expressions formed with one technique can be translated into expressions of the other. I then discuss argument selection within a type theoretic approach to semantics, and show how the predicative approach to decomposition can be modeled within a type theory with richer selectional mechanisms. In particular, I show how classic Generative Lexicon representations and operations can be viewed in terms of types and selection. * I would like to thank Nicholas Asher, with whom I have been developing the Type Composition Logic adopted here as the type theoretic interpretation of GL. I would also like to thank Ray Jackendoff, Jose Castano, Roser Sauri, Patrick Hanks, and Chungmin Lee for useful critical remarks. All errors and misrepresentations are, of course, my own.

Key takeaways
sparkles

AI

  1. The paper explores the relationship between lexical decomposition and type theory in semantics.
  2. Two major approaches to lexical decomposition are identified: parametric and predicative strategies.
  3. Argument selection is modeled within a type theoretic framework enhancing computational tractability.
  4. Generative Lexicon (GL) is framed within a type system with natural, artifactual, and complex types.
  5. Three mechanisms of argument selection are outlined: pure selection, accommodation, and coercion.
Figures (6)
To better understand the interactions between these operations, let us walk through some examples illustrating each of these selectional opera- tions. We start with the set of predicates selecting for a natural type ar- gument. Consider the intransitive verb fall, as it appears with natural, artifactual, and complex arguments, respectively. The typing on the head noun for each example is given in parentheses.
To better understand the interactions between these operations, let us walk through some examples illustrating each of these selectional opera- tions. We start with the set of predicates selecting for a natural type ar- gument. Consider the intransitive verb fall, as it appears with natural, artifactual, and complex arguments, respectively. The typing on the head noun for each example is given in parentheses.
Now consider the presence of a natural entity in a subject position select- ing for an artifactual type. This is the case in (71a); to satisfy the typing requirements on the predicate, the coercion rule of Introduction is required to wrap the natural type with a functional interpretation; that is, this water was going to be used for something, it had some function intended for it. The derivation is shown below.
Now consider the presence of a natural entity in a subject position select- ing for an artifactual type. This is the case in (71a); to satisfy the typing requirements on the predicate, the coercion rule of Introduction is required to wrap the natural type with a functional interpretation; that is, this water was going to be used for something, it had some function intended for it. The derivation is shown below.

Related papers

Type-theoretical semantics with coercive subtyping
Zhaohui Luo

Semantics and Linguistic Theory, 2010

In the formal semantics based on modern type theories, common nouns are interpreted as types, rather than as functional subsets of entities as in Montague grammar. This brings about important advantages in linguistic interpretations but also leads to a limitation of expressive power because there are fewer operations on types as compared with those on functional subsets. The theory of coercive subtyping adequately extends the modern type theories with a notion of subtyping and, as shown in this paper, plays a very useful role in making type theories more expressive for formal semantics. In particular, it gives a satisfactory treatment of the type-theoretic interpretation of modified common nouns and allows straightforward interpretations of interesting linguistic phenomena such as copredication, whose interpretations have been found difficult in a Montagovian setting. We shall also study some type-theoretic constructs that provide useful representational tools for formal lexical sem...

View PDFchevron_right
Modern Type Theories for Natural Language Semantics ( Introductory Course in Language and Logic )
Zhaohui Luo

2016

Modern Type Theories (MTTs) provide us with a new framework for formal semantics with attractive advantages as compared to Montague Grammar. First, MTTs have rich type structures that can be employed effectively to capture various linguistic features that have proved difficult in the Montagovian setting. Second, MTTs are prooftheoretically specified and can hence be usefully implemented in proof assistants such as Coq, where the MTT-semantics has been implemented for computer-assisted reasoning. These two respects may be characterised as saying that the MTT-semantics is both modeltheoretic and proof-theoretic. They offer unique features unavailable in traditional logical systems that have proved very useful in formal semantics. We shall introduce MTTs and how they can be used for formal semantics. The lectures will be informal and explanatory. They will be rigorous but contain a lot of examples, to illustrate the use of MTTs, on the one hand, and to compare the MTT-semantics with Mo...

View PDFchevron_right
Type Construction and the Logic of Concepts
James PUSTEJOVSKY

The Language of Word Meaning, 2001

I would like to pose a set of fundamental questions regarding the constraints we can place on the structure of our concepts, particularly as revealed through language. I will outline a methodology for the construction of ontological types based on the dual concerns of capturing linguistic generalizations and satisfying metaphysical considerations. I discuss what "kinds of things" there are, as reflected in the models of semantics we adopt for our linguistic theories. I argue that the flat and relatively homogeneous typing models coming out of classic Montague Grammar are grossly inadequate to the task of modelling and describing language and its meaning. I outline aspects of a semantic theory (Generative Lexicon) employing a ranking of types. I distinguish first between natural (simple) types and functional types, and then motivate the use of complex types (dot objects) to model objects with multiple and interdependent denotations. This approach will be called the Principle of Type Ordering. I will explore what the top lattice structures are within this model, and how these constructions relate to more classic issues in syntactic mapping from meaning.

View PDFchevron_right
Grammar and logical types
Glyn Morrill

In 7th Amsterdam Colloquium

This paper represents categorial grammar as an implicational type theory in the spirit of Girard's linear logic, and illustrates linguistic applications of a range of type- constructors over and above implication. ...

View PDFchevron_right
Towards a More Lexical and Functional Type-Logical Theory of Grammar
Miltiadis Kokkonidis

Type-Logical Lexical Functional Grammar is a new, radically lexicalist, and formally parsimonious theory, in essence a re-incarnation of Lexical Func- tional Grammar (Kaplan and Bresnan, 1982) in a type-logical formal frame- work very similar in formal nature to that of Type-Logical Categorial Gram- mar (Morrill, 1994; Moortgat, 1997). It puts emphasis on having a simple logical foundation as its formal basis and no empirically unmotivated primi- tives, representations, and mappings between them. It differs from TLCG in basing syntactic analyses on functional rather than constituent structure, to both LFG and TLCG in that it rejects syntactic categories as primitives, and to LFG in that it rejects c-structure as a linguistically significant representa- tion and in being radically lexicalist. The present paper presents TL-LFG, the sequence of developments that lead to it, and its key differences from LFG.

View PDFchevron_right
Type-shifting in formal semantics of natural languages
Hamidreza Bahramian

In type theoretical approaches to formal semantics of natural languages, a lexical item in a sentence is assigned a type and using a number of composition rules and based on the syntactic structure of the sentence, the types compose to converge to a single type called t, the semantic type for sentences, together with a statement specifying the conditions under which the sentence is true. For example consider the example (1-a) below (1) a. Every linguist offended Fred. b. Fred offended every linguist. The syntactic structure of the sentence, its type assignments and the compositions are as follows(we omit the obvious truth conditions since it does not concern our discussion of type shifting): (2) t DP < et, t > < et, < et, t >> every < e, t > linguist < e, t > V < e, et > offended NP e N e Fred So the above type system correctly predicts that the example (1-a) is semantically interpretable. Consider the word every which has been assigned the type <et , ett>. We say the type <et , ett> is a locally correct type for the word every since this type assignment gives the expected result for a context, namely example (1-a). We call a type assignment, a globally correct assignment if the type assignment converges in all contexts containing the word. Whether there exist globally correct type assignments for lexical entries or not is a challenging question. There are at least four possibilities to be considered: (1) (Hypothesis A) Lexical items have globally correct type assignments. If the type assignment for a lexical item does not converge in a given interpretable context, then either the syntactic structure of the context needs to be changed or a new lexical entry needs to be defined. (2) (Hypothesis B) Some lexical items do not have globally correct type assignments but their locally correct assignments are systematically related.

View PDFchevron_right
Heads and Phrases. Type Calculus for Dependency and Constituent Structure
Glyn Morrill

From a logical perspective, categorial type systems can be situated within a landscape of substructural logics --- logics with a structure-sensitive consequence relation. Research on these logics has shown that the inhabitants of the substructural hierarchy can be systematically related by embedding translations on the basis of structural modalities. The modal operators offer controlled access to stronger logics from within weaker ones by licensing of structural operations. Linguistic material exhibits structure in dimensions not covered by the standard structural rules. The purpose of this paper is to generalize the modalisation and licensing strategy to two such dimensions: phrasal structure and headedness. Phrasal domain-sensitive type systems capture the notion of constituent structure; constituency relaxation can be licensed via an associativity modality. The opposition between heads and non-heads introduces dependency structure, an autonomous dimension of linguistic structure ...

View PDFchevron_right
Formal Semantics in Modern Type Theories: Theory and Implementation
Zhaohui Luo

2014

Formal semantics based on Modern Type Theories (MTTs) provides us with not only a viable alternative to Montague Grammar, but potentially an attractive full-blown semantic tool with advantages in many respects. We shall introduce the MTT-based semantics and then study several issues such as adjectival modification, co-predication and coordination. Key comparisons to Montague Grammar are done all along, discussing the advantages of MTTs over simple type theory. For example, subtyping is crucially needed for proper semantic treatments of some linguistic features but has proven difficult in a Montagovian setting; coercive subtyping is adequate for MTTs and has become a key foundation for the MTTbased semantics. MTTs have been implemented in proof assistants, which can be used to implement MTT-based semantics and hence conduct computer-assisted reasoning in natural language. We shall consider NL inference implemented in Coq to show that such activities can be supported effectively.

View PDFchevron_right
When GL meets the corpus: a data-driven investigation of semantic types and coercion phenomena
Alessandro Lenci

2007

View PDFchevron_right
Adjectival and Adverbial Modification: The View from Modern Type Theories
Zhaohui Luo

Journal of Logic, Language and Information, 2017

In this paper we present a study of adjectival/adverbial modification using modern type theories (MTTs), i.e. type theories within the tradition of Martin-Löf. We present an account of various issues concerning adjectival/adverbial modification and argue that MTTs can be used as an adequate language for interpreting NL semantics. MTTs are not only expressive enough to deal with a range of modification phenomena, but are furthermore well-suited to perform reasoning tasks that can be easily implemented (e.g. in proof-assistants) given their proof-theoretic nature. In MTT-semantics, common nouns are interpreted as types rather than predicates. Therefore, in order to capture the semantics of adjectives adequately, one needs to meet the challenge of modeling CNs modified by adjectives as types. To explicate that this can be done successfully, we first look at the mainstream classification of adjectives, i.e. intersective, subsective and non-subsective adjectives. There, we show that the rich type structure available in MTTs, along with a suitable subtyping framework, offers an adequate

View PDFchevron_right

References (44)

  1. References Anscombe, G.E.M. 1958. "On Brute Facts". Analysis 18: 69-72.
  2. Asher, N. and Pustejovsky, J. (2005). "Word Meaning and Commonsense Metaphysics". ms. Brandeis University and University of Texas.
  3. Asher, N. and Pustejovsky, J. (this volume). "A Type Composition Logic for Generative Lexicon."
  4. Borschev, V. and B. Partee. 2001. Genitive modifiers, sorts, and metonymy. Nordic Journal of Linguistics, 24(2):140-160,.
  5. Bouillon, P. (1997). Polymorphie et sémantique lexicale : le cas des adjectifs, Lille: Presses Universitaires du Spetentrion.
  6. Busa, F. (1996). Compositionality and the Semantics of Nominals, Ph.D. Dis- sertation, Brandeis University.
  7. Busa, F., Calzolari, N., Lenci, A. and Pustejovsky, J. (1999). Building a Semantic Lexicon: Structuring and Generating Concepts. Proceedings of IWCS-III, Tilberg, The Netherlands.
  8. Chierchia, G. 1989. "Structured Meanings, Thematic Roles, and Control," in G. Chierchia, B. Partee, and R. Turner, eds., Properties, Types, and Mean- ing, vol. 2, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 131- 166.
  9. Copestake, A. and T. Briscoe 1992. "Lexical Operations in a Unification- based Framework," in J. Pustejovsky and S. Bergler, eds., Lexical Semantics and Knowledge Reperesentation, Springer Verlag, Berlin.
  10. Corblin, F. (2003) "Presuppositions and commitment stores", in Diabruck, 7th Workshop on the Semantics and the Pragmatics of Dialogue, 2003.
  11. Cruse, D. A. 1986. Lexical Semantics, Cambridge University Press.
  12. Davis, A., and J.-P. Koenig (2000). "Linking as constraints on word classes in a hierarchical lexicon," Language, 76.
  13. Dipert, R. R. 1993. Artifacts, Art Works, and Agency, Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
  14. Dowty, D. R. (1979). Word Meaning and Montague Grammar, Dordrecht: Kluver Academic Publishers Dowty, D. R. 1989. "On the Semantic Content of the Notion 'Thematic Role'," in G. Chierchia, B. Partee, and R. Turner, eds. Properties, Types, and Meaning, Vol. 2, Semantic Issues, Dordrecht.
  15. Fodor, J. (1998) Concepts, Oxford University Press.
  16. Fodor, J. and Lepore, E. (1998). The Emptiness of the Lexicon: Critical Reflections on J. Pustejovsky's The Generative Lexicon. Linguistic Inquiry Gazdar, G. , E. Klein, G. Pullum, and I. Sag. 1985. Generalized Phrase Struc- ture Grammar, Harvard University Press.
  17. Goldberg, A. (1995) Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Ar- gument Structure, University of Chicago Press.
  18. Gupta, A. (1980). The Logic of Common Nouns, Yale University Press, New Haven.
  19. Heim, I. and A. Kratzer. 1998. Semantics in Generative Grammar, Blackwell.
  20. Hobbs, J., M. Stickel, P. Martin, D. Edwards. 1993. "Interpretation as Ab- duction," Artificial Intelligence 63:69-142.
  21. Jackendoff, R. (2002) Foundations of Language, Oxford University Press, Ox- ford.
  22. Kamp, H. and B. Partee. 1995. "Prototype Theory and Compositionality", Cognition, Volume 57, Number 2, November 1995, pp. 129-191.
  23. Katz, J. and J. Fodor. 1963. "The Structure of a Semantic Theory," Language 39:170-210.
  24. Kratzer, A.. (1994). On external arguments. In Functional Projections, eds. Jeffrey Runner and Elena Benedicto, 103-129. Amherst, Ma.: GLSA Lakoff G. 1965/1970. Irregularity in Syntax. Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
  25. Larson, R. and S. Cho. 2003. "Temporal Adjectives and the Structure of Possessive DPs". Natural Language Semantics 11:3.
  26. Levin, B. and M. Rappaport Hovav. 1995. Unaccusatives: At the Syntax- Lexical Semantics Interface, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
  27. Levin, B. and M. Rappaport, (2005) Argument Realization, Cambridge: Cam- bridge University Press.
  28. Lyons, J. (1968) Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics, Cambridge University Press.
  29. McCawley, J. D. 1968. "The Role of Semantics in a Grammar," in E. Bach and R. T. Harms (eds.), Universals in Linguistic Theory, Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, New York, NY.
  30. Marantz, A.P. (1984) On the Nature of Grammatical Relations, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
  31. Moravcsik, J. M. 1975. "Aitia as Generative Factor in Aristotle's Philoso- phy," Dialogue 14:622-36.
  32. Parsons, T. (1990) Events in the Semantics of English, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Partee, B. 1992. "Syntactic Categories and Semantic Type," in M. Rosner and R. Johnson (eds.), Computational Linguistics and Formal Semantics, Cam- bridge University Press
  33. Partee, B. and V. Borshev. 2003. "Genitives, relational nouns, and argument- modifier ambiguity." In C. Fabricius-Hansen E. Lang C. Maienborn, edi- tor, Modifying Adjuncts, Interface Explorations. Mouton de Gruyter.
  34. Pinker, S. 1989. Learnability and Cognition: The Acquisition of Argument Structure, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
  35. Pollard, C. and I. Sag. 1994. Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Uni- versity of Chicago Press and Stanford CSLI, Chicago.
  36. Pustejovsky, J. 1991a. "The Generative Lexicon," Computational Linguistics, 17:409-441.
  37. Pustejovsky, J. (1995). The Generative Lexicon, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  38. Pustejovsky, J. (2001) "Type Construction and the Logic of Concepts", in P. Bouillon and F. Busa (eds.) The Syntax of Word Meaning, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
  39. Pustejovsky, J. (2006). Language Meaning and The Logic of Concepts, MIT Press.
  40. Pustejovsky, J. 2005. "Natural Kinds in Linguistics", in Festschrift for Chung- min Lee, Hankook Munhwasa Publishers.
  41. Pustejovsky, J. and B. Boguraev. 1993. "Lexical Knowledge Representation and Natural Language Processing," Artificial Intelligence 63:193-223.
  42. Searle, J. (1995) The Construction of Social Reality, Free Press.
  43. Van Valin, R. (2005) Exploring the Syntax-Semantics Interface, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
  44. Weinreich, U. 1972. Explorations in Semantic Theory, Mouton, The Hague.

Related papers

An outline of type-theoretical approaches to lexical semantics
Christian Retoré

Journal of Language Modelling, 2017

We take the opportunity of the publication of some of the papers of the ESSLLI workshop TYTLES (TYpe Theory and LExical Semantics, ESSLLI 2015, Barcelona) to provide an overview of the possibilities that type theory offers to model lexical semantics, especially the type-theoretical frameworks that properly model compositional semantics. origins of this issue: esslli workshop on type theory and lexical semantics 2015 The program of the ESSLLI 2015 workshop held in Barcelona 1 consisted of twelve selected talks. The corresponding extended abstracts, together with an introduction and a conclusion by the workshop organisers, are available on the web as Cooper and Retoré (2015); it includes: A. Introduction (slides), by Robin Cooper and Christian Retoré.

View PDFchevron_right
Introduction: Modern Perspectives in Type Theoretical Semantics
Zhaohui Luo

2017

Type theories, from the early days of Montague Semantics (Montague 1974) to the recent work of using rich or modern type theories, have a long history of being employed as foundational languages of natural language semantics. In this introductory chapter, we will describe and discuss the development of type theories as foundational languages of mathematics, as well as their applications as foundational languages for formal semantics. In the end, a brief description of each chapter in the volume will follow.

View PDFchevron_right
Type Theory and Natural Language: Do We Need Two Basic Types? 1
Barbara Partee

2012

0. A universal, or almost universal distinction, in syntax: Sentence and NP.........................................................1 1. A possibly universal foundation for natural language semantics: types e and t..................................................1 2. Thought experiments: “Monocategoric”? and just one basic semantic type?....................................................3 3. Ingredients for a possible one-basic-type semantics..........................................................................................3 3.1. Neo-Davidsonian semantics of event sentences..........................................................................................3 3.2. Kamp-Heim semantics for indefinite NPs..................................................................................................3 3.3. Open formulas are “almost ” type-neutral....................................................................................................4 3.4. Exploit the similarit...

View PDFchevron_right
Towards a Type-Theoretical Account of Lexical Semantics
Bruno Mery

Journal of Logic, Language and Information, 2010

After a quick overview of the field of study known as "Lexical Semantics", where we advocate the need of accessing additional information besides syntax and Montaguestyle semantics at the lexical level in order to complete the full analysis of an utterance, we summarize the current formulations of a well-known theory of that field. We then propose and justify our own model of the Generative Lexicon Theory, based upon a variation of classical compositional semantics, and outline its formalization. Additionally, we discuss the theoretical place of informational, knowledge-related data supposed to exist within the lexicon as well as within discourse and other linguistic constructs.

View PDFchevron_right
The Montagovian Generative Lexicon Lambda Ty_n: a Type Theoretical Framework for Natural Language Semantics
Christian Retoré

We present a framework, named the Montagovian generative lexicon, for computing the semantics of natural language sentences, expressed in many sorted higher order logic. Word meaning is depicted by several lambda terms of second order lambda calculus (Girard's system F): the principal lambda term encodes the argument structure, while the other lambda terms implement meaning transfers. The base types include a type for propositions and many types for sorts of a many sorted logic for expressing restriction of selection. This framework is able to integrate a proper treatment of lexical phenomena into a Montagovian compositional semantics, like the (im)possible arguments of a predicate, and the adaptation of a word meaning to some contexts. Among these adaptations of a word's sense to the context, ontological inclusions are handled by coercive subtyping, an extension of system F introduced in the present paper. The benefits of this framework for lexical semantics and pragmatics are illustrated on meaning transfers and coercions, on possible and impossible copredication over different senses, on deverbal ambiguities, and on "fictive motion". Next we show that the compositional treatment of determiners, quantifiers, plurals,... are finer grained in our framework. We then conclude with the linguistic, logical and computational perspectives opened by the Montagovian generative lexicon.

View PDFchevron_right

Cited by

Explicating the English lexicon of ‘doing and happening’
Cliff Goddard

Functions of Language, 2016

This study proposes NSM semantic explications for a cross-section of the English verbal lexicon of ‘doing and happening’. The twenty-five verbs are drawn from about a dozen verb classes, including verbs for non-typical locomotion (crawl,swim,fly), other intransitive activities (play,sing), manipulation (hold), activities that affect material integrity (cut,grind,dig), creation/production (make,build,carve), actions that affect people or things (hit,kick,kill) or cause a change of location (pick up,put,throw,push), bodily reactions to feelings (laugh,cry), displacement (fall,sink) and weather phenomena (rain,snow). Though the verbs explicated are specifically English verbs, they have been chosen with an eye to their relevance to lexical typology and cross-linguistic semantics (many are drawn from the Verb Meanings List of the Leipzig Valency Patterns project) and it is hoped that the analytical strategy and methodology exemplified in this study can be a useful model for research into...

View PDFchevron_right
Entity, event, and sensory modalities: An onto-cognitive account of sensory nouns
Chu-Ren Huang

Humanities and Social Sciences Communications

Nouns in human languages mostly profile concrete and abstract entities. But how much eventive information can be found in nouns? Will such eventive information found in sensory nouns have anything to do with the cognitive representation of the basic human senses? Importantly, is there any ontological and/or cognitive motivation that can account for this noun–verb dichotomy via body-and-world interactions? This study presents the first comprehensive investigation of sensory nouns in Mandarin Chinese, examining their qualia structures formalised in the Generative Lexicon Theory, as well as the time-dependent (endurant–perdurant) properties encoded in their sensory modalities. This study fills the gap in sensorial studies by highlighting the pivotal position of nouns in sensory experiences and provides insights into the interactions between perception, cognition, and language. Further, it establishes, for the first time, the cognitive motivation of the categorial noun–verb bifurcation ...

View PDFchevron_right
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104
© 2025 Academia. All rights reserved