Flexible Composition In Ltag: Quantifier Scope and Inverse Linking

  • Aravind K. Joshi
  • Laura Kallmeyer
  • Maribel Romero
Part of the Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy book series (SLAP, volume 83)


Noun Phrase Semantic Representation Derivation Tree Elementary Tree Categorial Grammar 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Alshawi, H. (ed.): 1992, The Core Language Engine. MIT Press.Google Scholar
  2. Barker, C.: 2001, ‘Integrity: A Syntactic Constraint of Quantificational Scoping’. In: M. K. and B. el L.A. (eds.): Proceedings of WCCFL 20. Somerville, MA, Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
  3. Barker, C.: 2002, ‘Continuations and the Nature of Quantification’. Natural Language Semantics.Google Scholar
  4. Bos, J.: 1995, ‘Predicate Logic Unplugged’. In: P. Dekker and M. Stokhof (eds.): Proceedings of the 10th Amsterdam Colloquium. pp. 133–142.Google Scholar
  5. Buering, D.: 2001, ‘A Situation Semantics for Binding out of DP’. In: R. H. et al. (ed.): Proceedings from SALT XI. Ithaca, NY, CLC Publications.Google Scholar
  6. Candito, M.-H. and S. Kahane: 1998, ‘Can the TAG Derivation Tree represent a Semantic Graph? An Answer in the Light of Meaning-Text Theory’. In: Fourth International Workshop on Tree Adjoining Grammars and Related Frameworks, IRCS Report 98–12. University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, pp. 25–28.Google Scholar
  7. Cinque, G.: 1999, Adverbs and functional heads : a cross-linguistic perspective. NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Copestake, A., D. Flickinger, I. A. Sag, and C. Pollard: 1999, ‘Minimal Recursion Semantics. An Introduction’. Manuscript, Stanford University.Google Scholar
  9. Copestake, A., A. Lascarides, and D. Flickinger: 2001, ‘An Algebra for Semantic Construction in Constraint-based Grammars’. In: Proceedings of ACL.Google Scholar
  10. Heim, I. and A. Kratzer: 1998, Semantics in Generative Grammar. Blackwell.Google Scholar
  11. Hobbs, J. and S. Shieber: 1987, ‘An Algorithm for Generating Quantifier Scopings’. Computational Linguistics 13, 47–63.Google Scholar
  12. Joshi, A. K. and Y. Schabes: 1997, ‘Tree-Adjoning Grammars’. In: G. Rozenberg and A. Salomaa (eds.): Handbook of Formal Languages. Berlin: Springer, pp. 69–123.Google Scholar
  13. Joshi, A. K. and K. Vijay-Shanker: 1999, ‘Compositional Semantics with Lexicalized Tree-Adjoining Grammar (LTAG): How Much Underspecification is Necessary?’. In: H. Bunt and E. Thijsse (eds.): Proceedings ot the Third International Workshop on Computational Semantics (IWCS-3). Tilburg, pp. 131–145. Revised version published in: H. Bunt, R. Muskens, and E. Thijsse (eds.) Computing Meaning, Vol.2. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers 2001, pp. 147–163.Google Scholar
  14. Kallmeyer, L. and A. K. Joshi: 1999, ‘Factoring Predicate Argument and Scope Semantics: Underspecified Semantics with LTAG’. In: P. Dekker (ed.): 12th Amsterdam Colloquium. Proceedings. Amsterdam, pp. 169–174.Google Scholar
  15. Kallmeyer, L. and A. K. Joshi: 2003, ‘Factoring Predicate Argument and Scope Semantics: Underspecified Semantics with LTAG’. Research on Language and Computation 1(1–2), 3–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kratzer, A.: 1998, ‘Scope or Pseudoscope? Are There Wide-Scope Indefinites?’. In: S. Rothstein (ed.): Events and Grammar. Great Britain: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 163–196.Google Scholar
  17. Larson, R.: 1987, ‘Quantifying into NP’. Ms. MIT.Google Scholar
  18. Link, G.: 1983, ‘The Logical Analysis of Plurals and Mass Terms’. In: R. B. et al. (ed.): Meaning, Use and Interpretation of Language. Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 302–323.Google Scholar
  19. May, R.: 1985, Logical Form. Its Structure and Derivation. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  20. Morill, G. V.: 1994, Type Logical Grammar. Categorial Logic of Signs. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  21. Percus, O.: 2000, ‘Constraints on some other variables in syntax’. Natural Language Semantics.Google Scholar
  22. Reinhart, T.: 1997, ‘How Labor is Divided between QR and Choice Functions’. Linguistics and Philosophy pp. 335–397.Google Scholar
  23. Reyle, U.: 1993, ‘Dealing with Ambiguities by Underspecification: Construction, Representation and Deduction’. Journal of Semantics 10, 123–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Romero, M.: 2002, ‘Quantification over situations variables in LTAG: some constraints’. In: Proceedings of LTAG+6. Venice, Italy.Google Scholar
  25. Sauerland, U.: 2000, ‘Syntactic Economy and Quantifier Raising’. Ms. University of Tübingen.Google Scholar
  26. Steedman, M.: 1996, Surface Structure and Interpretation, No. 30 in Linguistic Inquiry. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Aravind K. Joshi
  • Laura Kallmeyer
  • Maribel Romero

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations