Advertisement

Eliminating Ditransitives

  • András Kornai
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7395)

Abstract

We discuss how higher arity verbs such as give or promise can be treated in an algebraic framework that admits only unary and binary relations and does not rely on event variables.

Keywords

Binary Relation High Arity External Argument Variable Binding Indirect Object 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Anderson, J.: Modern grammars of case: a retrospective. Oxford University Press (2006)Google Scholar
  2. Andrews, A.: Model-theoretic semantics as structural semantics. ms, ANU (2003)Google Scholar
  3. Boguraev, B.K., Briscoe, E.J.: Computational Lexicography for Natural Language Processing. Longman (1989)Google Scholar
  4. Brachman, R.: On the epistemological status of semantic networks (1979)Google Scholar
  5. Brachman, R., Levesque, H.: Readings in knowledge representation. Kaufman Publishers Inc., Los Altos (1985)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. Curry, H.B.: Some logical aspects of grammatical structure. In: Jakobson, R. (ed.) Structure of Language and its Mathematical Aspects, pp. 56–68. American Mathematical Society, Providence (1961)Google Scholar
  7. Eilenberg, S.: Automata, Languages, and Machines, vol. A. Academic Press (1974)Google Scholar
  8. Findler, N.: Associative Networks: Representation and Use of Knowledge by Computers. Academic Press (1979)Google Scholar
  9. Fodor, J.: Three reasons for not deriving “kill” from “cause to die”. Linguistic Inquiry 1(4), 429–438 (1970)Google Scholar
  10. Graham, A.C.: Two Chinese Philosophers, London (1958)Google Scholar
  11. Jackendoff, R.S.: Semantic Structures. MIT Press (1990)Google Scholar
  12. Jacobson, P.: Towards a variable-free semantics. Linguistics and Philosophy 22, 117–184 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kiparsky, P.: On the Architecture of {P}\={a}\d{n}ini’s grammar. ms, Stanford University (2002)Google Scholar
  14. Kornai, A.: Mathematical Linguistics. Springer (2008)Google Scholar
  15. Kornai, A.: The algebra of lexical semantics. In: Jäger, G., Michaelis, J. (eds.) Proceedings of the 11th Mathematics of Language Workshop. FoLLI Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence. Springer (2010a)Google Scholar
  16. Kornai, A.: The treatment of ordinary quantification in English proper. Hungarian Review of Philosophy 54(4), 150–162 (2010b)Google Scholar
  17. Lakoff, G.: Pronouns and reference (1968)Google Scholar
  18. Lewis, D.: General semantics. Synthese 22(1), 18–67 (1970)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Marsh, W., Partee, B.: How non-context-free is variable binding? In: Cobler, M., MacKaye, S., Wescoat, M. (eds.) Proceedings of the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics III, pp. 179–190 (1984)Google Scholar
  20. Pike, K.: Language in Relation to a Unified Theory of the Structure of Human Behavior. Mouton, The Hague (1960)Google Scholar
  21. Pollard, C.: Hyperintensions. Journal of Logic and Computation 18(2), 257–282 (2008)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Quillian, M.R.: The teachable language comprehender. Communications of the ACM 12, 459–476 (1969)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Rawls, J.: Two concepts of rules. The Philosophical Review 64(1), 3–32 (1955)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Roeper, T.: Implict arguments and the head-complement relation. Linguistic Inquiry 18, 267–310 (1987)Google Scholar
  25. Russell, B.: The Philosophy of Leibniz. Allen und Andwin (1900)Google Scholar
  26. Schank, R.: The Fourteen Primitive Actions and Their Inferences. Stanford AI Lab Memo 183 (1973)Google Scholar
  27. Sichel, I.: New evidence for the structural realization of the implicit external argument in nominalizations. Linguistic Inguiry 40(4), 712–723 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Somers, H.L.: Valency and case in computational linguistics. Edinburgh University Press (1987)Google Scholar
  29. Sowa, J.: Knowledge representation: logical, philosophical, and computational foundations, vol. 594. MIT Press (2000)Google Scholar
  30. Steedman, M.: The Syntactic Process. MIT Press (2001)Google Scholar
  31. Szabolcsi, A.: Bound variables in syntax – are there any? In: Gronendijk, J., Stokhof, M., Veltman, F. (eds.) Proceedings of the 6th Amsterdam Colloquium. Institute for Language, Logic, and Information, Amsterdam, pp. 331–351 (1987)Google Scholar
  32. Talmy, L.: Force dynamics in language and cognition. Cognitive Science 12(1), 49–100 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Turner, R.: Montague semantics, nominalisations and Scott’s domains. Linguistics and Philosophy 6, 259–288 (1983)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Turner, R.: Three theories of nominalized predicates. Studia Logica 44(2), 165–186 (1985)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wierzbicka, A.: Lexicography and conceptual analysis. Karoma, Ann Arbor (1985)Google Scholar
  36. Woods, W.A.: What’s in a link: Foundations for semantic networks. Representation and Understanding: Studies in Cognitive Science, 35–82 (1975)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • András Kornai
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Institute for Quantitative Social ScienceHarvard UniversityUSA
  2. 2.Computer and Automation Research InstituteHungarian Academy of SciencesHungary

Personalised recommendations