Skip to main content

Flexible Composition In Ltag: Quantifier Scope and Inverse Linking

  • Chapter
Computing Meaning

Part of the book series: Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy ((SLAP,volume 83))

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Alshawi, H. (ed.): 1992, The Core Language Engine. MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Barker, C.: 2002, ‘Continuations and the Nature of Quantification’. Natural Language Semantics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bos, J.: 1995, ‘Predicate Logic Unplugged’. In: P. Dekker and M. Stokhof (eds.): Proceedings of the 10th Amsterdam Colloquium. pp. 133–142.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Cinque, G.: 1999, Adverbs and functional heads : a cross-linguistic perspective. NY: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Copestake, A., D. Flickinger, I. A. Sag, and C. Pollard: 1999, ‘Minimal Recursion Semantics. An Introduction’. Manuscript, Stanford University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Copestake, A., A. Lascarides, and D. Flickinger: 2001, ‘An Algebra for Semantic Construction in Constraint-based Grammars’. In: Proceedings of ACL.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heim, I. and A. Kratzer: 1998, Semantics in Generative Grammar. Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hobbs, J. and S. Shieber: 1987, ‘An Algorithm for Generating Quantifier Scopings’. Computational Linguistics 13, 47–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Larson, R.: 1987, ‘Quantifying into NP’. Ms. MIT.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • May, R.: 1985, Logical Form. Its Structure and Derivation. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morill, G. V.: 1994, Type Logical Grammar. Categorial Logic of Signs. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Percus, O.: 2000, ‘Constraints on some other variables in syntax’. Natural Language Semantics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reinhart, T.: 1997, ‘How Labor is Divided between QR and Choice Functions’. Linguistics and Philosophy pp. 335–397.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reyle, U.: 1993, ‘Dealing with Ambiguities by Underspecification: Construction, Representation and Deduction’. Journal of Semantics 10, 123–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Romero, M.: 2002, ‘Quantification over situations variables in LTAG: some constraints’. In: Proceedings of LTAG+6. Venice, Italy.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sauerland, U.: 2000, ‘Syntactic Economy and Quantifier Raising’. Ms. University of Tübingen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steedman, M.: 1996, Surface Structure and Interpretation, No. 30 in Linguistic Inquiry. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2008 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Joshi, A.K., Kallmeyer, L., Romero, M. (2008). Flexible Composition In Ltag: Quantifier Scope and Inverse Linking. In: Bunt, H., Muskens, R. (eds) Computing Meaning. Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy, vol 83. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-5958-2_11

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics