Symmetric categorial grammar

Michael Moortgat

British Logic Colloquium, Nottingham, Sept 2008

 Abstract
Fifty years ago, Jim Lambek published the seminal ”Mathematics of sentence
structure”. In that paper, the familiar parts of speech (nouns, verbs, ...) take
the form of formulas of a substructural logic; determining whether a phrase is
well-formed, and assigning it an interpretation, i.e. parsing, can then be seen as a
process of deduction in the grammar logic.
The original Syntactic Calculus has turned out to be strictly context free,
and it has an NP-complete decision problem. The goal of recent extensions of
Lambek-style categorial type logics is to find a balance between expressivity and
computational tractability: can one combine the ability to recognize patterns be-
yond context-free with polynomial parsing algorithms?
In the talk, I show how symmetric categorial grammar answers that challenge.
In addition to the Lambek connectives (product, for phrasal composition, and resid-
ual left and right division) one considers a dual family: coproduct with residual left
and right difference operations. The two families interact via structure-preserving
distributivity principles originally studied by Grishin in 1983. I discuss modelthe-
oretic and prooftheoretic properties of the resulting Lambek-Grishin calculus. I
show how its derivations can be given a proofs-as-programs interpretation in the
continuation passing style.
1. The Lambek program

from: Lambek 1958

2. Categorial grammar
A categorial grammar in the tradition of Lambek consists of two components

I universal: syntactic calculus freely generated from a given set of basic types

I language-specific: a lexicon, associating each word with a finite number of types

Language generated string w1 · · · wn is assigned type B by a categorial grammar if

I there are Ai such that (wi , Ai ) is in the lexicon, and

I there is a ⊗-tree X with yield A1 , . . . , An such that X → B is derivable in the

syntactic calculus.

Expressivity, tractability Searching for the appropriate syntactic calculus, we want to

find a balance between

I expressivity: ability to handle patterns beyond CF

I computational tractability: polynomial parsing problem

3. Outline of the talk
In its original formulation, Lambek’s calculus falls short of the set aims.

I Lacking expressivity: L is strictly context-free (Pentus 1993)

I Computational complexity: L is NP-complete (Pentus 2006)

I compare two strategies to address these problems.

I ♦,  Modalities

. Controlled structural rules

I ⊗, ⊕ Symmetric categorial grammar (Grishin 1983)

. Structure-preserving distributivity principles

Both strategies combine mild CS expressivity with polynomial parsing (Moot 2008).
Part I. Structural control
4. Vocabulary
The parts of speech are turned into

I formulas: logical perspective

I types: computational perspective

A, B ::= p | atoms: s sentence, np noun phrase, . . .

♦A | A | features: key, lock

A ⊗ B | A/B | B\A fusion, right vs left selection

5. Structural semantics
Modal logic: ‘logic of structures’.
Logic of language: grammatical structures.

2 , R3 i
I Frames F = hW, R♦ ⊗

. W : ‘signs’, linguistic resources, expressions

3 : ‘Merge’, grammatical composition
. R⊗
2 : ‘feature checking’, structural control
. R♦

I Models M = hF, V i

I Valuation V : F 7→ P(W ): types as sets of expressions

Remark The language is purely modal — no Boolean operations.

6. Interpretation of the constants
Inverse duality ⊗ and ♦ as existential multiplicative modalities; slashes and  as
duals with respect to the rotations of R⊗ and R♦

x ♦A iff ∃y.R♦ xy and y A

y B iff ∀x.R♦ xy implies x B

x A⊗B iff ∃yz.R⊗ xyz and y A and z B

y C/B iff ∀xz.(R⊗ xyz and z B) implies x C
z A\C iff ∀xy.(R⊗ xyz and y A) implies x C

Compare For ♦, : hF i, [P ] in minimal temporal logic; for ⊗ and its residuals: fusion
in relevant logics.

p 6→ hF ip [P ]p 6→ p
hF i[P ]p → p → [P ]hF ip
7. The pure logic of residuation
The minimal grammar logic is given by the preorder laws for derivability (reflexivity
A → A) and transitivity: from A → B and B → C, deduce A → C), together with
the residuation laws below.

Residuation laws relating pairs of opposites (inverse duals):

(res-1) ♦A → B iff A → B
(res-l) A ⊗ B → C iff A → C/B
(res-r) A ⊗ B → C iff B → A\C

Completeness With no constraints on the interpretation of Merge/Check we have

A→B is provable iff ∀F, V, V (A) ⊆ V (B)

Invariants The laws of the base logic hold no matter what the structural particularities
of individual languages are
8. Emergence of grammatical notions
Grammatical notions and their properties, rather than being postulated, emerge from
the type structure. Some examples:

I Subcategorization, valency. Intransitive np\s, transitive (np\s)/np, ditransitive

((np\s)/np)/np, etc

I Case. Subject s/(np\s), direct object ((np\s)/np)\(np\s), prepositional object

(pp/np)\pp, etc

I Complements versus modifiers. Compare exocentric A/B with A 6= B versus

endocentric A/A categories. Optionality of the latter follows.

I Filler-gap dependencies (rudimentary!). Nested implications C/(A\B) signal

withdrawal of a gap hypothesis A in a domain B.
9. Soving type equations
Inducing the lexicon from structured data (Buszkowski/Penn, Kanazawa)

SU ⊗ (TV ⊗ OBJ)

Lewis likes Alice np (np\s)/np np

He likes Alice s/(np\s) (np\s)/np np

Lewis likes her np (np\s)/np ((np\s)/np)\(np\s)

Who likes Alice? wh/(np\s) (np\s)/np np

Limitation One cannot reconcile semantic uniformity with structural disparity:

Claudia ◦ ((lo ◦ presta) ◦ a Fabio)

Claudia ◦ ((lo ◦ vuole) ◦ (prestare ◦ a Fabio))
Claudia ◦ (vuole ◦ ((prestar ◦ lo) ◦ a Fabio))
10. Discontinuous dependencies
Restricted λ abstraction In a term (M λxA .N B )C , which positions can the A hy-
pothesis (gap) occupy? Two kinds of discontinuity problems:

I Extraction: syntactic displacement. Example: wh “movement”.

Leopold knows whatwh/(np???s) Molly suggested np to Mulligan

I Infixation: non-local semantic construal. Examples: wh “in situ”; scope.

Molly thinks someones???(np???s) is cheating

Needed Logical tools to express under what structural deformations the form-meaning
correspondence is preserved.
11. Constants for structural control
Instead of hard-wired options with a global effect (⊗ associativity, commutativity),
languages use controlled structural reasoning, anchored in lexical type assignment.

Structural modalities Residuated pair ♦, : ♦A → B iff A → B New forms of

expressivity:

I Subtyping via ♦A → A → ♦A

I ♦ controlled structural rules: left versus right extraction (wh: q/(s/♦np))

(P 1) ♦A ⊗ (B ⊗ C) → (♦A ⊗ B) ⊗ C (C ⊗ B) ⊗ ♦A → C ⊗ (B ⊗ ♦A) (P 3)

(P 2) ♦A ⊗ (B ⊗ C) → B ⊗ (♦A ⊗ C) (C ⊗ B) ⊗ ♦A → (C ⊗ ♦A) ⊗ B (P 4)

Embeddings The expressivity of LP (implication/fusion fragment of intuitionistic

Linear Logic) is regained through embedding translations (Kurtonina/Moortgat 1997).
12. Structural modalities: some results
I PhD theses @ OTS

. Kurtonina 1995, Frames & Labels.

. Moot 2002, Proof Nets for Linguistic Analysis.
. Bernardi 2002, Reasoning with Polarity in Categorial Type Logic.
. Vermaat 2006, The logic of variation. A cross-linguistic account of wh-
question formation in type logical grammar.

I Moortgat 1997, Categorial type logics. Handbook of Logic and Language, Chap-
ter 2. Elsevier/MIT Press.
Part II. Symmetry
 13. 1
Lambek and Grishin
Existing proposals to extend the syntactic calculus beyond CF model derivability as an
asymmetric relation A1 , . . . , An → B (the “intuitionistic” restriction). Pure residua-

On a Generalization
tion logic plus non-logical axioms for structural flexibility.

of the Ajdukiewicz-Lambek System

Complementary strategy We restore the symmetry.

I LG = symmetric NL + structure preserving distributivity principles

I Symmetry: A1 ⊗ · · · ⊗ An → B1 ⊕ · · · ⊕ Bm
Viacheslav Nikolaevich Grishin
I Distributivities: respecting word order and phrase structure

LG stands for Lambek-Grishin calculus; it is based on Grishin 1983

riginal version "Об одном обобщении системы Айдукевича–Ламбека"

tudies in non-classical logics and formal systems, Nauka, Moscow 1983,
ания по неклассическим логикам и формальным системам, Наука,
anslation by D. C̆ubrić , edited by the author, appeared in V.M. Abrusci
w Perspectives in Logic and Formal Linguistics. Proceedings 5th Roma
re, Rome, 2002. The corrected version below was prepared by Anna
14. Symmetric CG: results so far
I Kripke relational semantics, soundness/completeness. Kurtonina & MM 2007.
Decidability. MM 2007.

I Proof nets. Moot 2007, generalizing Moot & Puite 2002.

I Complexity. LG is is mildly context-sensitive, polynomially parseable. Moot 2008.

. The result applies also to the ♦ controlled extraction postulates.

I Grouptheoretic characterization of LG type similarity. Moortgat & Pentus FG07.

I Continuation semantics (Moortgat & Bernardi WoLLIC07).

More To Explore ESSLLI07 course materials at

http://symcg.pbwiki.com
15. Vocabulary
A, B ::= p | atoms: s sentence, np noun phrase, . . .

A ⊗ B | B\A | A/B | product, left vs right division

A⊕B |AB |B;A coproduct, right vs left difference

Pronounciation guide
A/B “A over B”
B\A “B under A”
AB “A minus B”
B;A “B from A”

Antecedents The discovery of Grishin’s 83 paper is due to Lambek93. From the

available options in Grishin’s paper, our choices differ in a number of respects from
those made for Lambek’s bilinear systems.
16. Lambek-Grishin calculus
We arrive at LG in two steps:

I the minimal symmetric system: LG∅

I extension with interaction principles

LG∅ is the pure logic of residuation:

I preoder axioms: A → A; from A → B and B → C conclude A → C

I (dual) residuation principles

A → C/B iff A⊗B →C iff B → A\C

B;C →A iff C →B⊕A iff CA→B

Remark Compared to Grishin83, Lambek93, we don’t opt for associativity for ⊗, ⊕:

types are assigned to phrases, not to strings. Also, the extension with units 1, 0 is not
considered.
17. Arrows
Lambek 1988 presents the syntactic calculus as a deductive system consisting of a
class of arrows (proofs) and a class of types (formulas), with two mappings between
them

source
−
−−−→
Arrows target Types
−−−→

f
(writing A −→ B for source(f ) = A, target(f ) = B).
This provides us with a language of proof terms to individuate derivations.
1
A
Given are the identity arrow A −→ A and composition of arrows

f g
A −→ B B −→ C
g◦f
A −−−→ C
f f g h
with 1B ◦ f = f = f ◦ 1A for A −→ B, and (hf )g = h(f g) for A −→ B −→ C −→ D.
18. Residuated pairs, adjoints
LG adds adjointness/residuation principles for \, ⊗, / and their duals for , ⊕, ;.

f f
A ⊗ B −→ C C −→ B ⊕ A

f f
B−
−→ A\C CA−
−→ B
f f
A ⊗ B −→ C C −→ B ⊕ A
f f
A−
−→ C/B B;C −
−→ A

These inference rules are invertible (we write
0 etc).

19. Two symmetries
f f
A −→ B A −→ B
f ./ f∞
−→ B ./
A./ − −→ A∞
B∞ −

Types For atoms p./ = p; for complex types (A ⊗ B)./ = B ./ ⊗ A./ , etc, as in the
translation tables below:

C/D A⊗B B⊕A D;C C/B A⊗B A\C

./ ∞
D\C B⊗A A⊕B CD B;C B⊕A CA

Proofs (1A )./ = 1A./ , (1A )∞ = 1A∞ ; (g ◦ f )./ = g ./ ◦ f ./ , (g ◦ f )∞ = f ∞ ◦ g ∞ ;

f f
0 f 0 f
∞
f f 0 f 0 f

Klein’s V Compositions of ·./ and ·∞ obey the laws of the group V = {1, ./, ∞, (∞ ./)},
Klein’s Vierengruppe, the smallest non-cyclic Abelian group.
20. Structural semantics: fusion vs fission
Models (W, R⊗ , R⊕ , V ); valuation V : Form → P(W ). Completeness: Kurtonina &
Moortgat 2007 (weak filters). Alternatively, Generalized Kripke Frames, Chernilovskaya
& Gehrke 2008.

Multiplicative conjunction Merge, fusion, composition (⊗) and its residuals:

x A⊗B iff ∃yz.R⊗ xyz and y A and z B

y C/B iff ∀xz.(R⊗ xyz and z B) implies x C
z A\C iff ∀xy.(R⊗ xyz and y A) implies x C

Multiplicative disjunction Fission (⊕) and its residuals:

x A⊕B iff ∀yz.R⊕ xyz implies (y A or z B)

y CB iff ∃xz.R⊕ xyz and z 6 B and x C
z A;C iff ∃xy.R⊕ xyz and y 6 A and x C

Remark In the minimal symmetric system LG∅ , fission R⊕ and merge R⊗ are distinct
relations. They will be related when we add frame constraints for the distributivity
laws to be considered.
21. Decidable proof search
From (RES) and (TRANS) one derives the monotonicity principles (MON) and the
((CO)UNIT) laws.

f g
Monotonicity From A −→ B and C −→ D, infer

g\f f ⊗g f /g
D\A −−→ C\B; A ⊗ C −−−→ B ⊗ D; A/D −−→ B/C;
f g g⊕f g;f
A  D −−−→ B  C; C ⊕ A −−−→ D ⊕ B; D ; A −−−→ C ; B

(Co)unit laws Add the images under ·./

 η
(A/B) ⊗ B −→ A A −→ (A ⊗ B)/B
η∞ ∞
B ; (B ⊕ A) −
−→ A A −
−→ B ⊕ (B ; A)

Cut elimination The deductive systems ID+TRANS+RES and ID+RES+MON are

equivalent. Corollary: decidability. (Moortgat 2007).
22. The need for interaction
Motivation Moving to symmetric LG∅ by itself doesn’t give interesting new expres-
sivity. Suppose we want to assign a type B  C to a word. When we use this word in
building a phrase,  is trapped in its ⊗ context:

A1 ⊗ · · · Ai ⊗ (B  C) ⊗ Ai+2 · · · An → D

Structure preservation Which properties of grammatical organization do we want

the interaction principles to preserve?

I word order: interaction should respect the non-commutativity of ⊗/⊕

I phrase structure: interaction should respect their non-associativity

Distributivity laws Grishin 1983 provides the recipe to compute all combinatorial
possibilities that satisfy these requirements.
23. Distributivity principles
df df
Notation For ∗ ∈ {/, ⊗, \, ;, ⊕, }, we write a?∗ b = b ∗ a and a∗? b = a ∗ b.

The matrix We consider the 8 monotone operations, split in two groups, M and
Λ = M∞

M = { ?⊗, ⊗?, ?, ;? }
Λ = { ⊕?, ?⊕, \?, ?/ } = M∞

M × Λ defines 16 extensions of LG∅ in terms of postulates of the form

aµ bλ c → bλ aµ c

I Eight of these are the same-sort associativities and commutativities: they violate
structure preservation.

I The remaining eight relate the ⊗ and the ⊕ families; they are structure preserving.
24. Class I versus Class IV
⊕? ?⊕ \? ?/
?⊗ I1 I2
⊗? I4 I3
? IV1 IV2
;? IV4 IV3

Grishin’s Class I versus Class IV distributivities realize the schema aµ bλ c → bλ aµ c as:

(I1 ) (b ⊕ c) ⊗ a → b ⊕ (c ⊗ a) (b\c)  a → b\(c  a) (IV1 )

(I2 ) (c ⊕ b) ⊗ a → (c ⊗ a) ⊕ b (c/b)  a → (c  a)/b (IV2 )
(I3 ) a ⊗ (c ⊕ b) → (a ⊗ c) ⊕ b a ; (c/b) → (a ; c)/b (IV3 )
(I4 ) a ⊗ (b ⊕ c) → b ⊕ (a ⊗ c) a ; (b\c) → b\(a ; c) (IV4 )

Remark In each class, the choice of the operations µ, λ constitutes a group given by
the ·./ symmetry:

C2 × C2 = {(1, 1), (1, ./), (./, 1), (./, ./)}

(the Klein group again). Earlier presentations of Grishin’s work (Lambek93, Goré99)
have only given the (1, 1) and (./, ./) cases.
25. Distributivity: rule form
Among the interderivable forms of the distributivity laws, we choose the form that puts
together the structural occurrences of the operations. E.g. IV3 :

(C\B)  A → C\(B  A)
A ⊗ (B  C) → (A ⊗ B)  C

For decidable proof search, we compose with TRANS. Below the Class IV distributivities
as inference rules:

f f
A ; (B ⊗ C) −→ D (A ⊗ B)  C −→ D
L L
f f
(A ; B) ⊗ C −→ D A ⊗ (B  C) −→ D

f f
B ; (A ⊗ C) −→ D (A ⊗ C)  B −→ D
Lf Lf
A ⊗ (B ; C) −→ D (A  B) ⊗ C −→ D

The Class I distributivities, in this form, are the converses.

26. Choices
LG∅ + I + IV
n7 hPPP
nnnnn PPP
PPP
nnnn PPP
nn
LG∅ + I LG∅ + IV (= LG)
gPPP nn6
PPP nnn
PPP nnn
PPP nn
P nnn
LG∅

The schema above gives the choices for extending LG∅ .

I Class IV proves useful for the analysis of non-local scope construal

I Class I has not found linguistic uses (so far) (ideas. . . ?)

I both the Class I and the Class IV extensions are conservative

I the combination I+IV is non-conservative: ⊗ and ⊕ degenerate into associa-

tive/commutative operations
27. Illustration: non-local scope
Strategy Start from a lexical type assignment from which the Lambek assignment is
derivable:

someone (s  s) ; np → s/(np\s)

We leave the local construal as an exercise. Below the non-local construal.

np ⊗ (((np\s)/s) ⊗ (np ⊗ (np\s))) → s s → (s  s) ⊕ s

np ⊗ (((np\s)/s) ⊗ (np ⊗ (np\s))) → (s  s) ⊕ s
(s  s) ; (np ⊗ (((np\s)/s) ⊗ (np ⊗ (np\s)))) → s
..
.
np ⊗ (((np\s)/s) ⊗ (((s  s) ; np) ⊗ (np\s))) → s
|{z} | {z } | {z } | {z }
Alice thinks someone left

I The (s  s) moves upwards through ⊗ structure, leaving np behind

I When (s  s) has reached the top, it can jump to the rhs by means of the dual
residuation principle.
28. Computational semantics
Proofs as programs Derivations get a computational interpretation in terms of the
lambda calculus.

I Lambek calculus

. subsystem of intuitionistic logic

. terms of the simply typed λ calculus; direct interpretation

I Lambek-Grishin

. subsystem of classical logic

. terms of the λµe
µ calculus (Curien/Herbelin); CPS translation

Joint work with Raffaella Bernardi:

Bernardi, R. and M. Moortgat (2007) ‘Continuation semantics for symmet-

ric categorial grammar’. Proceedings WoLLIC’07, Springer LNCS 4576,
pp. 53–71. Revised version to appear in Information & Computation.
29. CPS transformation
In classical logic, one distinguishes values from evaluation contexts, for all types A.

Evaluation strategies Reduction is non-confluent: critical pairs can arise when a

value is cut against an evaluation context. We distinguish two evaluation strategies to
deal with this situation:

I call by value: give precedence to the value

I call by name: give precedence to the evaluation context (aka continuation)

CPS One obtains a constructive interpretation of classical derivations via a continuation-

passing-style (CPS) transformation.

SOURCE
CP S / TARGET
something
Curien/Herbelin: LKµeµ sequents IL
λµe
µ terms λ terms
here: LG arrows
30. CPS transformation: LG
We define the CPS transformation for LG on types and on proofs.
The target type language has a distinguished type R of responses, products and func-
tions; all functions have range R.

Types: call-by-value For each source language type A, the target language has

values VA = dAe
continuations KA = VA → R (functions from VA to R)
computations CA = KA → R (functions from KA to R)

For p atomic, dpe = p. For (co)implications:

dA\Be = (dAe × (dBe → R)) → R dB  Ae = dBe × (dAe → R)

dB/Ae = ((dBe → R) × dAe) → R dA ; Be = (dAe → R) × dBe

Remark Reverting to a types-as-formulas view, think of R as ⊥. One then has

dA\Be = ¬(dAe ∧ ¬dBe); dB  Ae = dBe ∧ ¬dAe, etc.
31. CPS (cont’d)
Types: call-by-name For each type A of the source language, the target language
has continuations KA = bAc and computations CA = KA → R.
The call-by-name interpretation b·c is obtained as the composition of the ·∞ duality
map and the d·e interpretation:
bAc , dA∞ e

For atoms, bpc = dp∞ e. For the (co)implications, compare the cbv intepretation (left)
with the cbn interpretation (right).

dA\Be = (dAe × (dBe → R)) → R (bAc × (bBc → R)) → R = bB  Ac;

dB  Ae = dBe × (dAe → R) bBc × (bAc → R) = bA\Bc;
dB/Ae = ((dBe → R) × dAe) → R ((bBc → R) × bAc) → R = bA ; Bc;
dA ; Be = (dAe → R) × dBe (bAc → R) × bBc = bB/Ac.

Remark The CPS interpretation reflects the ·./ and ·∞ symmetries. For example,
dA\Be = dA  Be → R.
32. CPS transformation: proofs
f
For every arrow A −→ B we distinguish a left-to-right perspective f > and a right-to-
left perspective f < .

f>
I A−
−→ B: focus on value B
f<
I A−
−→ B: focus on evaluation context A

f
CPS interpretation of proofs Given A −→ B, infer

df > e dBe df < e

dA\Be dAe −−−→ RR ; RdBe −−−→ RdAe dB/Ae

bf < c bAc bf > c

bA  Bc bBc −−−→ RR ; RbAc −−−→ RbBc bB ; Ac

i.e. call-by-value df > e maps A values to B computations; bf > c maps A computations

to B computations; etc.
33. Identity, composition
1A
Identity Given A −→ A, we have

d(1A )> e : dAe → (dAe → R) → R

x 7→ λα.(α x)

d(1A )< e : (dAe → R) → dAe → R

α 7→ λx.(α x)

f g
Composition Given A −→ B −→ C, we have

d(g ◦ f )> e : dAe → (dCe → R) → R

x 7→ λγ.({df > e x} {dg < e γ})

Here and below, df < e = SWAPdf > e.

34. Monotonicity
Implication

f g
A −→ B C −→ D
g\f
D\A −−→ C\B

d(g\f )> e : dD\Ae → (dC\Be → R) → R

y 7→ λk.(k λhx, βi.({dg > e x} λm.(y hm, {df < e β}i)))

Co-implication

f g
A −→ B C −→ D
f g
A  D −−−→ B  C

d(f  g)< e : (dB  Ce → R) → dA  De → R

α 7→ λhx, δi.({df > e x} λy.(α hy, {dg < e δ}i))

35. From MG to LG
Montague-style direct interpretation of the slashes has (A\B)0 = (B/A)0 = A0 → B 0 .
For the connection with CPS intepretation for LG we interpret R as {0, 1}.
We have to lift lexical meanings from source language ci : A0i to target language

Vci W : dAi e (cbv)

Tci U : bAi c (cbn)

so that the diagram commutes. (A = A1 ⊗ · · · ⊗ An )

(·)0
f / M : B0
A −→ B

CPS M [xi := ci ]


/ .
M v : dBe ev M v [xi :=Vci W]
M n : bBc ev M n [xi :=Tci U]

Remark ev : evaluation function, providing the trivial continuation as last step.

36. Sample lexical entries
word type alias d·e cbv b·c cbn
alice np dnpe bnpc
dse
left np\s iv Rdnpe×R bsc × Rbnpc
dive ×dnpe
teases (np\s)/np tv RR Rbnpc × bivc
dse ×dive
somebody s/(np\s) su RR Rbivc × bsc

Call by value
ValiceW = alice
VleftW = λhx, ci.(c (left x))
VteasesW = λhv, yi.(v λhx, ci.(c ((teases y) x)))
VsomebodyW = λhc, vi.(∃ λx.(v hx, ci))

Call by name
TaliceU = λc.(c alice)
TleftU = λhc, qi.(q λx.(c (left x)))
TteasesU = λhq, hc, q 0 ii.(q 0 λx.(q λy.(c ((teases y) x))))
TsomebodyU = λhv, ci.(∃ λx.(v hc, λc0 .(c0 x)i))
37. The LG quantifier type
How to express the meaning for a gq type assignment (s  s) ; np in terms of the
logical constants ∃, ∀ of type (e → t) → t ?

Target types

(gq value) dgqe = Kss × Vnp

(gq continuation) bgqc = dgq ∞ e = dnp∞ /(s∞ \s∞ )e

= (Cnp × ((Ks × Cs ) → R)) → R

Target terms J is known as the lifting combinator.

VsomeoneW = no solution

TsomeoneU = λQ.(∃ λx.(Q hλk.(k x), λhc, pi.(p c)i))

= λQ.(∃ λx.(Q h(J x), Ji))

38. Scope construal
We illustrate the interplay between derivational and lexical semantics in LG. Our sample
includes the following:

I type uniformity for simple GQ sentences

I surface scope vs inverted scope

I extensional vs higher order predicates

I complement clauses and non-local construal

39. Simple GQ
TsomeoneU = λQ.(∃ λx.(Q h(J x), Ji))

TleftU = λhc, qi.(q λx.(c (left x)))

s→s s→s

(s  s) → (s  s) 0

np → np s → ((s  s) ⊕ s)
\
(np\s) → (np\((s  s) ⊕ s))

0
(np ⊗ (np\s)) → ((s  s) ⊕ s)

((s  s) ; (np ⊗ (np\s))) → s L
(((s  s) ; np) ⊗ (np\s)) → s

bM c = λc.((TsomeoneU λhq, mi.(m hc, λc0 .(TleftU hc0 , qi)i)))

= λc.(∃ λx.(c (left x)))

40. Simple transitive sentence
Where the Lambek type s/(np\s) is restricted to subject positions, the LG type as-
signment gq = (s  s) ; np can occur in any np position.

TaliceU = λc.(c alice)

TteasesU = λhq, hc, q 0 ii.(q 0 λx.(q λy.(c ((teases y) x))))

TsomeoneU = λQ.(∃ λx.(Q h(J x), Ji))

np
tv gq
alice
teases someone

bM c = λc.((TsomeoneU λhq, mi.(m hc, λc0 .(TteasesU hq, hc0 , TaliceUii)i)))

= λc.(∃ λx.(c ((teases x) alice))

41. Scope ambiguity
Ambiguity arises from the non-determinism in the choice of the active formula.

gq
tv gq
everyone
teases someone

λc.(TevrU λhq, mi.(TsmU λhq 0 , m0 i.(m hc, λc0 .(m0 hc0 , λc00 .(TteasesU hq 0 , hc00 , qii)i)i)))
; λc.(∀ λx.(∃ λy.(c ((teases y) x))))

λc.(TsmU λhq 0 , m0 i.(TevrU λhq, mi.(m0 hc, λc0 .(m hc0 , λc00 .(TteasesU hq 0 , hc00 , qii)i)i)))
; λc.(∃ λy.(∀ λx.(c ((teases y) x))))
42. Complement clauses: non-local scope
We write cs for s/(s\s). The type of the constant ‘thinks’ below is then (iv/cs)0 =
((t → t) → t) → (e → t).

TthinksU = λhh, hc, qii.(q λx.(c ((thinks λc0 .(h hJ, c0 i)) x)))

np
iv/cs
alice gq iv
thinks
someone left

λc.(TthinksU hλhm0 , c0 i.(TsmU λhq, mi.(m hc0 , λc000 .(m0 hc000 , λc00 .(TleftU hc00 , qi)i)i)), hc, TaliceUii)
λc.(TsmU λhq, mi.(m hc, λc0 .(TthinksU hλhm0 , c000 i.(m0 hc000 , λc00 .(TleftU hc00 , qi)i), hc0 , TaliceUii)i))
; λc.(c ((thinks λc0 .(∃ λx.(c0 (left x)))) alice))
; λc.(∃ λx.(c ((thinks λc0 .(c0 (left x))) alice)))
43. Conclusions
I Lambek’s syntactic calculus NL is too poor to model discontinuous dependencies.

I Known extensions such as L are no remedy: CF, NP-complete.

I Symmetric LG offers an alternative: mildly CS, polynomial.

I CPS translation connects LG derivational semantics to MG style interpretation.

I Next step: modalities for delimited continuations.