Scope ambiguities, monads and strengths

• Autorzy: Grudzińska J. , Zawadowski M.

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.15398/jlm.v5i2.163

• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

In this paper, we will discuss three semantically distinct scope assignment strategies: traditional movement strategy, polyadic approach, and continuation-based approach. Since generalized quantifiers on a set X are elements of C(X), which is the value of the continuation monad C on X, quantifier phrases are interpreted as C-computations, in all three approaches. The main goal of this paper is to relate the three strategies to the computational machinery connected to the monad C (strength and derived operations). As will be shown, both the polyadic approach and the continuation-based approach make heavy use of monad constructs. In the traditional movement strategy, monad constructs are not used but we still need them to explain how the three strategies are related and what can be expected of them with regard to handling scopal ambiguities in simple sentences.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

scope ambiguity; continuation monad; strength

• Wydawca: Instytut Podstaw Informatyki PAN
• Czasopismo: Journal of Language Modelling
• Rocznik: 2017
• Tom: Vol. 5, No. 2
• Strony: 179--227
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 27 poz., rys., tab.

Twórcy

autor

Grudzińska J.

• Institute of Philosophy, University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland

autor

Zawadowski M.

• Institute of Mathematics, University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland

Bibliografia

• [1] Chris Barker (2002), Continuations and the nature of quantification, Natural language semantics, 10 (3): 211-242.
• [2] Chris Barker and Chung-chieh Shan (2014), Continuations and natural language, volume 53, Oxford Studies in Theoretical Linguistics.
• [3] Daisuke Bekki and Kenichi Asai (2009), Representing covert movements by delimited continuations, in JSAI International Symposium on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 161-180, Springer.
• [4] Simon Charlow (2014), On the semantics of exceptional scope, Ph.D. thesis, New York University.
• [5] Noam Chomsky (1993), Lectures on government and binding: The Pisa lectures, 9, Walter de Gruyter.
• [6] Robin Cooper (1983), Quantification and semantic theory, Dordrecht: Reidel.
• [7] Philippe De Groote (2001), Type raising, continuations, and classical logic, in Proceedings of the thirteenth Amsterdam Colloquium, pp. 97-101.
• [8] Samuel Eilenberg and G Max Kelly (1966), Closed categories, in Proceedings of the Conference on Categorical Algebra, pp. 421-562, Springer.
• [9] Samuel Eilenberg, John C Moore, et al. (1965), Adjoint functors and triples, Illinois Journal of Mathematics, 9 (3): 381-398.
• [10] Roger Godement (1958), Topologie algébrique et théorie des faisceaux, volume 13, Hermann Paris.
• [11] Justyna Grudzinska and Marek Zawadowski (2016), Continuation semantics for multi-quantifier sentences: operation-based approaches, ar xiv preprint arXiv: 1608.00255.
• [12] Herman Hendriks (1993), Studied flexibility: Categories and types in syntax and semantics, Institute for Logic, Language and Computation.
• [13] Edward L Keenan (1987), Unreducible n-ary quantifiers in natural language, in Generalized quantifiers, pp. 109-150, Springer.
• [14] Edward L Keenan (1992), Beyond the Frege boundary, Linguistics and Philosophy, 15 (2): 199-221.
• [15] Oleg Kiselyov and Chung-chieh Shan (2014), Continuation hierarchy and quantifier scope, in Formal Approaches to Semantics and Pragmatics, pp. 105-134, Springer.
• [16] Heinrich Kleisli (1965), Every standard construction is induced by a pair of adjoint functors, Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society, 16 (3): 544-546.
• [17] Anders Kock (1970), Monads on symmetric monoidal closed categories, Archiv der Mathematik, 21 (1): 1-10.
• [18] Anders Kock (1971), Closed categories generated by commutative monads, Journal of the Australian Mathematical Society, 12 (04): 405-424.
• [19] Anders Kock (1972), Strong functors and monoidal monads, Archiv der Mathematik, 23 (1): 113-120.
• [20] Robert May (1978), The grammar of quantification., Ph.D. thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
• [21] Robert May (1985), Logical Form: Its structure and derivation, volume 12, MIT press.
• [22] Eugenio Moggi (1991), Notions of computation and monads, Information and computation, 93 (1): 55-92.
• [23] Richard Montague (1973), The proper treatment of quantification in ordinary English, in Approaches to natural language, pp. 221-242, Springer.
• [24] Chung-chieh Shan (2002), Monads for natural language semantics, ar xiv preprint cs/0205026.
• [25] Johan Van Benthem (1989), Polyadic quantifiers, Linguistics and Philosophy, 12 (4): 437-464.
• [26] Philip Wadler (1990), Comprehending monads, in Proceedings of the 1990 ACM conference on LISP and functional programming, pp. 61-78, ACM.
• [27] Marek Zawadowski (1989), Formalization of the feature system in terms of preorders, Feature System for Quantification Structures in Natural Language [3], pp. 155-175.