Abstract
Lambek elegantly characterized part of natural language. As is well-known, his substructural logic L, and its non-associative version NL, handle basic function/argument composition well, but not scope taking and syntactic displacement—at least, not in their full generality. In previous work, I propose \(\text {NL}_\lambda \), which is NL supplemented with a single structural inference rule (“abstraction”). Abstraction closely resembles the traditional linguistic rule of quantifier raising, and characterizes both semantic scope taking and syntactic displacement. Due to the unconventional form of the abstraction inference, there has been some doubt that \(\text {NL}_\lambda \) should count at a legitimate substructural logic. This paper argues that \(\text {NL}_\lambda \) is perfectly well-behaved. In particular, it enjoys cut elimination and an interpolation result. In addition, perhaps surprisingly, it is decidable. Finally, I prove that it is sound and complete with respect to the usual class of relational frames.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Barker, C. (2007). Parasitic scope. Linguistics and Philosophy, 30(4), 407–444.
Barker, C. (2013). Scopability and sluicing. Linguistics and Philosophy, 36(3), 187–223.
Barker, C. (2015a). Scope. In S. Lappin & C. Fox (Eds.), The handbook of contemporary semantics (2d ed., pp. 47–87). London: Wiley-Blackwell.
Barker, C. (2015b). Scope as syntactic abstraction. In T. Murata, K. Mineshima, & D. Bekki (Eds.), New frontiers in artificial intelligence (pp. 184–199). Berlin: Springer.
Barker, C. (In prep.). The logic of scope. [working title] NYU manuscript.
Barker, C., & Shan, C. (2014). Continuations and natural language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Buszkowski, W. (2005). Lambek calculus with nonlogical axioms. In Casadio, C., Scott, P. J., & Seely, R. A. G. (Eds.), Language and Grammar. Studies in Mathematical Linguistics and Natural Language. CSLI Lecture Notes (Vol. 168, pp. 77–93). Stanford: CSLI Press.
Buszkowski, W. (2010). Lambek calculus and substructural logics. Linguistic Analysis, 36, 15–48.
Craig, W. (1957). Three uses of the Herbrand–Gentzen theorem in relating model theory and proof theory. The Journal of Symbolic Logic, 22(3), 269–285.
de Groote, P. (2002). Towards abstract categorial grammars. In Proceedings of the 40th annual meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (pp. 148–155). San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.
Heim, I., & Kratzer, A. (1998). Semantics in generative grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.
Jäger, G. (2005). Residuation, structural rules, and context freeness. Journal of Logic, Language, and Information, 13(1), 49–57.
Kubota, Y. (2015). Nonconstituent coordination in Japanese as constituent coordination: An analysis in hybrid type-logical categorial grammar. Linguistic Inquiry, 46(1), 1–42.
Lambek, J. (1958). The mathematics of sentence structure. The American Mathematical Monthly, 65, 154–170.
Lambek, J. (1961). On the calculus of syntactic types. In R. Jakobson (Ed.), Structure of language and its mathematical aspects (pp. 166–178). Providence: American Mathematical Society.
Lambek, J. (1988). Categorial and categorical grammars. In R. T. Oehrle, et al. (Eds.), Categorial grammars and natural language structures (pp. 297–317). Dordrecht: Reidel.
May, R. (1977). The Grammar of Quantification. Ph.D. thesis, MIT. Reprinted by New York: Garland, 1991.
May, R. (1985). Logical Form: Its Structure and Derivation. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Moortgat, M. (1996). Generalized quantifiers and discontinuous type constructors. In H. Bunt & A. van Horck (Eds.), Discontinuous constituency (pp. 181–208). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Moortgat, M. (1997). Categorial type logics. In J. F. A. K. van Benthem & B. ter Meulen (Eds.), Handbook of logic and language (pp. 93–178). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Morrill, G., Valentín, O., & Fadda, M. (2011). The displacement calculus. Journal of Logic, Language and Information, 20(1), 1–48.
Muskens, R. (2001). \(\lambda \)-grammars and the syntax–semantics interface. In R. van Rooy, M. Stokhof, et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 13th Amsterdam colloquium. Amsterdam: Institute for Logic, Language and Computation, Universiteit van Amsterdam.
Oehrle, R. T. (1994). Term-labeled categorial type systems. Linguistics and Philosophy, 17(6), 633–678.
Ono, H. (2003). Substructural logics and residuated lattices–an introduction. In V. F. Hendricks & J. Malinowski (Eds.), Trends in logic: 50 years of studia logica (pp. 193–228). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Pentus, M. (1993). Lambek grammars are context free. In Proceedings of the eighth annual IEEE symposium on logic in computer science (pp. 429–433).
Restall, G. (2000). An introduction to substructural logics. London: Routledge.
Roorda, D. (1991). Resource logics: Proof-theoretical investigations. PhD thesis, Amsterdam.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Thanks to Glyn Morrill, Larry Moss, Greg Restall, Shawn Standefer, and my three referees.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Barker, C. \(\hbox {NL}_\lambda \) as the Logic of Scope and Movement. J of Log Lang and Inf 28, 217–237 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10849-019-09288-1
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10849-019-09288-1