Trees, pheno, tectogrammar

[Shalom Lappin]

Hi Tibor, Carl, and Ivan,
     In fact the other approach to Categorial Grammar, Combinatorial
Categorial Grammar, does seek to represent the contribution  of phrasal
order and prosody to semantic interpretation. Steedman  ((1996) and
(2000))  develops detailed CCG treatments of discontinuous constituents
and various types of extraposition which sustain the mapping from
syntactic categories to lambda-terms in the semantic representation
language. CCG derivations are, of course, not proofs in a sequent
calculus. They depend upon a set of cominbatorial operations in addition
to functional application. However, they are reductions to normal forms
within the lambda  calculus. Regards.
                                                             Shalom

Tibor Kiss wrote:

>Hi,
>
>a very specific remark to Carl's recent comment:
>
>
>
>>I agree the right way to think of syntactic derivations is as proofs,
>>though I don't think it is essential that the logic be substructural:
>>if you take Curry's advice (as Dowty, Reape, Kathol etc. did) to
>>separate purely combinatorial aspects of syntax
>>("tectogrammatical" structure)
>>from how syntactic entities "surface" ("phonegrammatical"
>>structure) then
>>you can just use ordinary (intuitionistic) propositional logic for the
>>derivations.
>>
>>
>
>Separating tectogrammar (combination->interpretation) from phenogrammar
>leads to the assumption that linear re-ordering does not have effects on
>meaning. A version of this view also seems to be endorsed by MP people, and
>earlier by GB people who assumed that extraposition and scrambling are to be
>handled as phonological operations. (The last time I came across such an
>idea, but in the context of verb-second, is Reuland's (2001) paper on
>Binding.)
>
>BUT: This assumption is clearly wrong for a wide variety of dislocation
>operations, such as extraposition and scrambling. For extraposition, this
>has already been discussed in Culicover/Rochemont (1990), and my _Semantic
>Constraints on Relative Clause Extraposition_ is almost entirely devoted to
>promote the view that extraposition has semantic effects and is constrained
>by rules of interpretation (earlier views in the same direction are
>Wittenburg 1987 and Stucky 1987, both in Syntax and Semantics 20).
>
>For scrambling, the effects on quantification and variable binding are
>dramatic (and have been completely ignored in e.g. Kathol's thesis).
>
>To cut a long story short: Separating tectogrammar from phenogrammar does
>not work.
>
>Best
>
>Tibor
>
>------------------------------------------
>Prof. Dr. Tibor Kiss
>Sprachwissenschaftliches Institut - Ruhr-Universität Bochum
>+49-234-3225114 // +49-177-7468265
>
>
>------------------------------------------
>Prof. Dr. Tibor Kiss
>Sprachwissenschaftliches Institut - Ruhr-Universität Bochum
>+49-234-3225114 // +49-177-7468265
>
>
>
>
>