The syntax-semantics correspondence and underspecification

[Shalom Lappin]

Hi Carl, Tibor, and the rest of the HPSG List,
   I am puzzled by Carl's recent replies to Tibor. Carl you appear to
have returned to a classical Montague (PTQ) view of the syntax-semantics
correspondence in which differences in semantic representation entail
distinctions in syntactic structure. On this approach variant scope
readings are obtained from alternative syntactic derivations/structures.
Have you, then, given up underspecified semantic representations of the
MRS
(or related) variety which can be resolved to different interpretations
but correspond to a single syntactic source? If so, then what of the
advantages of underspecified representations, such as the avoidance of
spurious, unmotivated syntactic ambiguity, achieving greater computational
efficiency in the interpretation process by not generating k!
syntactic-semantic correspondences for k scope taking elements in a
sentence, etc.? If you have not given up underspecified respresentations,
how are they accommodated in the Lambek calculus type grammar that you
have sketched? Regards.
                      Shalom