Resource Sharing in Type Logical Grammar

  • Gerhard Jäger
Part of the Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy book series (SLAP, volume 80)


Categorial Grammars are generally resource conscious formal systems. They describe how linguistic signs can be combined and transformed, but linguistic material is usually neither multiplied nor destroyed under categorial analyses. In other words, Categorial Grammars avoid counterparts of copy transformations and deletion rules.


Natural Deduction Categorial Grammar Anaphora Resolution Wide Scope Reading Verb Phrase Ellipsis 
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. Carpenter, Bob (1998). Type-Logical Semantics. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  2. Dahl, Östen (1974). How to open a sentence. In Logical Grammar Report, number 12. University of Göteborg.Google Scholar
  3. Dalrymple, Mary, Shieber, Stuart M., and Pereira, Fernando (1991). Ellipsis and higher-order unification. Linguistics and Philosophy, 14(4):399–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Fiengo, Robert and May, Robert (1994). Indices and Identity. MIT Press, Cambridge (Mass.).Google Scholar
  5. Gawron, Jean Mark and Peters, Stanley (1990). Anaphora and Quantification in Situation Semantics. CSLI, Stanford.Google Scholar
  6. Hardt, Daniel (1993). Verb Phrase Ellipsis: Form, Meaning, and Processing. PhD thesis, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
  7. Hepple, Mark (1990). The Grammar and Processing of Order and Dependency: A Categorial Approach. PhD thesis, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
  8. Hirschbühler, P. (1982). VP-deletion and Across-the-Board quantifier scope. In Pustejovsky, James and Sells, Peter, editors, Proceedings of NELS 12, pages 132–139. GLSA, Amherst.Google Scholar
  9. Jacobson, Pauline (1999). Towards a variable-free semantics. Linguistics and Philosophy, 22(2): 117–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Jäger, Gerhard (1999). Deconstructing Jacobson’s Z. In Dekker, Paul, editor, Proceedings of the Twelfth Amsterdam Colloquium, pages 133–138. University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  11. Jäger, Gerhard (2001). Anaphora and quantification in categorial grammar. In Moortgat, Michael, editor, Logical Aspects of Computational Linguistics, number 2014 in Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, pages 70–89. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.Google Scholar
  12. Kempson, Ruth M. and Cormack, Annabel (1983). Type lifting rules and VP anaphora. In Barlow, M. T., Flickinger, D. P., and Wescoat, M. T., editors, Proceedings of WCCFL 2, pages 140–152.Google Scholar
  13. Lambek, Joachim (1958). The mathematics of sentence structure. American Mathematical Monthly, 65:154–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Moortgat, Michael (1996). Generalized quantification and discontinuous type constructors. In Sijtsma, Wietske and von Horck, Arthur, editors, Discontinuous Constituency. De Gruyter, Berlin.Google Scholar
  15. Morrill, Glyn, Leslie, Neil, Hepple, Mark, and Barry, Guy (1990). Categorial deduction and structural operations. In Barry, Guy and Morrill, Glyn, editors, Studies in Categorial Grammar, volume 5 of Edinburgh Working Papers in Cognitive Science, pages 1–21. University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
  16. Pereira, Fernando (1990). Categorial semantics and scoping. Computational Linguistics, 16(1): 1–10.Google Scholar
  17. Reinhart, Tanya (1983). Anaphora and Semantic Interpretation. Croom Helm.Google Scholar
  18. Rooth, Mats (1992). Ellipsis redundancy and reduction redundancy. In Berman, Steve and Hestvik, Arild, editors, Proceedings of the Stuttgart Ellipsis Workshop, Arbeitspapiere des SFB 340 “Sprachtheoretische Grundlagen für die Computerlinguistik”, Nr. 29. IBM Heidelberg.Google Scholar
  19. Sag, Ivan A. (1976). Deletion and Logical Form. PhD thesis, MIT.Google Scholar
  20. Shieber, Stuart M., Pereira, Fernando, and Dalrymple, Mary (1996). Interaction of scope and ellipsis. Linguistics and Philosophy, 19(5):527–552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Szabolcsi, Anna (1989). Bound variables in syntax (are there any?). In Bartsch, Renate, van Benthem, Johan, and van Emde Boas, Peter, editors, Semantics and Contextual Expressions, pages 295–318. Foris.Google Scholar
  22. Wescoat, Michael T. (1989). Sloppy readings with embedded antecedents. manuscript, Stanford University.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gerhard Jäger
    • 1
  1. 1.Universität PotsdamGermany

Personalised recommendations