{
    "paper_id": "C92-1035",
    "header": {
        "generated_with": "S2ORC 1.0.0",
        "date_generated": "2023-01-19T12:33:13.952896Z"
    },
    "title": "CATEGORIAL SEMANTICS FOR LFG",
    "authors": [
        {
            "first": "Mary",
            "middle": [],
            "last": "Dalrymple",
            "suffix": "",
            "affiliation": {
                "laboratory": "",
                "institution": "Xerox PARC",
                "location": {
                    "postCode": "94304",
                    "settlement": "Palo Alto",
                    "region": "CA",
                    "country": "USA"
                }
            },
            "email": "dalrymple@parc.xerox.com"
        }
    ],
    "year": "",
    "venue": null,
    "identifiers": {},
    "abstract": "",
    "pdf_parse": {
        "paper_id": "C92-1035",
        "_pdf_hash": "",
        "abstract": [],
        "body_text": [
            {
                "text": "A categorial semantics for Lexical-khmctional Grammar provides a means for semantic interpretation of sentences of natural language that is appropriately constrained both syntactically and semantically. The f-structure of LFG provides a cross-lingnistically uniform format for representing syntactic information; constraining a derivation with respect to the f-structure rather than a phrase structure tree allows reference to relevant functional syntactic information without requiring construction of a phrase structure tree whose form is (often dubiously) motivated on semantic grounds. Additionally, a categorial semantics constrains semantic derivations appropriately, obviating the need for an appeal to wellformedness conditions on the resulting semantic representation.",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Introduction",
                "sec_num": "1"
            },
            {
                "text": "Most semantic analyses appeal to syntactic constraints on semantic derivations. In particular, many analyses assume that such syntactic constraints are statable in terms of phrase structure tree configurations (Montague, 1974) . However, it is well-known that a variety of phrase structure configurations can express the same syntactic predicate-argunlent relations within and across languages (Kaplan and Bresnan, 1982) ; thus, syntactic constraints on semantic derivations are better expressed at a level at which the relevant syntactic information is expressed more uniformly. Such a level is the f-structure of LFG.",
                "cite_spans": [
                    {
                        "start": 210,
                        "end": 226,
                        "text": "(Montague, 1974)",
                        "ref_id": "BIBREF10"
                    },
                    {
                        "start": 394,
                        "end": 420,
                        "text": "(Kaplan and Bresnan, 1982)",
                        "ref_id": null
                    }
                ],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Previous Work",
                "sec_num": "2"
            },
            {
                "text": "Halvorsen (1983) first provided a theory of semantic interpretation for LFG in which semantic interpretation rules are related to the f-structure. His system involves an intermediate level of representation, the 'semantic structure', which is represented as a directed graph {like the f-structure). Translation rules map from f-structures to semantic structures, and these structures are then interpreted (or translated into a formula of intensional logic).",
                "cite_spans": [
                    {
                        "start": 10,
                        "end": 16,
                        "text": "(1983)",
                        "ref_id": null
                    }
                ],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Previous Work",
                "sec_num": "2"
            },
            {
                "text": "The approach to be presented here also relies on f-structure configurations to provide syntactic constraints on categorial semantic derivations. However, an intermediate level of semantic representation such as Halvorsen's semantic structure is not introduced. In the categoriai semantic framework developed by Fernando Pereira (Pereira, 1990; Pereira and Pollack, 1991; , syntactic structures are directly associated with interpretations (or their types), and syntactic configurations license the combination of these interpretations in a semantic derivation. On this approach, 'logical forms' are not viewed as manipulable syntactic objects; instead, a logical formula is simply a graphical representation of a meaning that is lexically provided or that is the outcome of a semantically justified derivation. In this, the approach differs from other recent approaches to semantic interpretation in LFG (Halvorsen and , in which the interpretation of an fstructure is represented as a directed graph, and semantic derivation proceeds principally by unification of semantic representations. As a consequence, these approaches require constraints on semantic derivations to be stated as wellformedness conditions on semantic representations, contrary to the commonly-held goal of dispensabihty of logical form.",
                "cite_spans": [
                    {
                        "start": 311,
                        "end": 343,
                        "text": "Fernando Pereira (Pereira, 1990;",
                        "ref_id": "BIBREF12"
                    },
                    {
                        "start": 344,
                        "end": 370,
                        "text": "Pereira and Pollack, 1991;",
                        "ref_id": "BIBREF11"
                    }
                ],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Previous Work",
                "sec_num": "2"
            },
            {
                "text": "To illustrate a categorial semantic analysis within LFG, I will provide a small fragment of syntactic and semantic rules of English; the fragment contains rules for quantified noun phrases, nominal modification, and clauses headed by transitive and intransitive verbs. Many of these rules are modifications and extensions of rules originally described in Pereira (1990) , though Pereira's system appeals to phrase structure configurations rather than f-structures to con-strain semantic derivations; in particular, the rules Pereira provides for quantifiers and relative clauses have direct counterparts in the set of rules to be described below.",
                "cite_spans": [
                    {
                        "start": 355,
                        "end": 369,
                        "text": "Pereira (1990)",
                        "ref_id": "BIBREF12"
                    }
                ],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Previous Work",
                "sec_num": "2"
            },
            {
                "text": "A sentence such as (1) has the interpretation given in (2): 1",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Sentence Interpretation",
                "sec_num": "3"
            },
            {
                "text": "(1) John crashed.",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Sentence Interpretation",
                "sec_num": "3"
            },
            {
                "text": "( 2)crash (john) This interpretation is the outcome of a derivation according to a set of rules to be described below. Some of the rules must be licensed by particular f-structure configurations, while some are unrestricted in their apphcahihty. Example 1 has the following hstructure:",
                "cite_spans": [
                    {
                        "start": 10,
                        "end": 16,
                        "text": "(john)",
                        "ref_id": null
                    }
                ],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Sentence Interpretation",
                "sec_num": "3"
            },
            {
                "text": "(3) [PRED ,crash (SUBJ) , 1 [SkrBJ [PRED 'John']]",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Sentence Interpretation",
                "sec_num": "3"
            },
            {
                "text": "Annotated phrase structure rules hke the following are assumed: 2",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Sentence Interpretation",
                "sec_num": "3"
            },
            {
                "text": "S ---, NP VP (T suBJ)=~ 1- VP -~ V (NP) T=~ (T oB~)=l",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Sentence Interpretation",
                "sec_num": "3"
            },
            {
                "text": "Notice that these phrase structure rules encode only syntactic information. No semantic information or constraints are required. The lexical entries involved in the derivation of sentence (1) are:",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Sentence Interpretation",
                "sec_num": "3"
            },
            {
                "text": "John NP (I PRED)= 'John' I~ = [OP/] crashed V (T PILED)= 'crash(suBJ}' (, TENSE) = PAST (T PRED)a : [O [-Ax.crash(z)]",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Sentence Interpretation",
                "sec_num": "3"
            },
            {
                "text": "The notation f~, stands for the interpretation of an f-structure f, often referred to as the semantic projection of f (Kaplan, 1987; Halvorsen and Kaplan, 1988) . The interpretation for any f-structure f is a sequent:",
                "cite_spans": [
                    {
                        "start": 118,
                        "end": 132,
                        "text": "(Kaplan, 1987;",
                        "ref_id": "BIBREF9"
                    },
                    {
                        "start": 133,
                        "end": 160,
                        "text": "Halvorsen and Kaplan, 1988)",
                        "ref_id": null
                    }
                ],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Sentence Interpretation",
                "sec_num": "3"
            },
            {
                "text": "1I will ignore tense and aspect in the representation of sentence meanings.",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Sentence Interpretation",
                "sec_num": "3"
            },
            {
                "text": "2See Bresnan (1982) for an explication of the relation between c-structure and f-structure and the notation commonly used to represent that relation.",
                "cite_spans": [
                    {
                        "start": 5,
                        "end": 19,
                        "text": "Bresnan (1982)",
                        "ref_id": null
                    }
                ],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Sentence Interpretation",
                "sec_num": "3"
            },
            {
                "text": "The sequent '[a ~ M]' is a pair consisting of a set of assumptions a, somewhat analogous to a 'quantifier store ' (Cooper, 1983) , and a matrix term M in which free variables introduced by the asstutlptions in a may occur (Pereira, 1990; Dalrymple et al., 1991) . In the following, I will speak of such expressions as introducing the meaning M under the assumptions in a.",
                "cite_spans": [
                    {
                        "start": 112,
                        "end": 128,
                        "text": "' (Cooper, 1983)",
                        "ref_id": null
                    },
                    {
                        "start": 222,
                        "end": 237,
                        "text": "(Pereira, 1990;",
                        "ref_id": "BIBREF12"
                    },
                    {
                        "start": 238,
                        "end": 261,
                        "text": "Dalrymple et al., 1991)",
                        "ref_id": "BIBREF3"
                    }
                ],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "(4) G:[o~-M]",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "I assume a fixed order of application of the meaning of a verb to its semantic arguments, with the order determined by the syntax (though this assmnption is not crucial to the analysis). Arguments are applied in the following order: s",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "(4) G:[o~-M]",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "(1) Obliques",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "(4) G:[o~-M]",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "(2) o,~2",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "(4) G:[o~-M]",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "(3) osJ (4) sunJ",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "(4) G:[o~-M]",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "The PILED of the f-structure of an active verb such as own will, then, be associated via the a mapping with the following interpretation:",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "(4) G:[o~-M]",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "Ay. Ax.own(x,y) Notice that the verb is required to combine with the object first, and then the subject, in accordance with the argument ordering given above. ]:'or a passive verb, the ordering will be reversed.",
                "cite_spans": [
                    {
                        "start": 4,
                        "end": 15,
                        "text": "Ax.own(x,y)",
                        "ref_id": null
                    }
                ],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "(4) G:[o~-M]",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "For the passive verb (be) owned, the order will be:",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "(4) G:[o~-M]",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "(6) x~.~v.",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "(4) G:[o~-M]",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "Here, the verb combines first with the oblique by-phrase, then with the subject. The rule for interpreting art f-structure for a clause headed by an intransitive verb is: 4 7Clause with intransitive verb:",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "ow,t(~,v)",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "3This order of application was also proposed by Dowry (1982) , and is reminiscent of the obliqueness ordering for arguments in HPSG (Pollard and Sag, 1987) .",
                "cite_spans": [
                    {
                        "start": 48,
                        "end": 60,
                        "text": "Dowry (1982)",
                        "ref_id": null
                    },
                    {
                        "start": 132,
                        "end": 155,
                        "text": "(Pollard and Sag, 1987)",
                        "ref_id": null
                    }
                ],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "ow,t(~,v)",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "4This rule should apply when f has a PRED and a sUB J, but no other governable grammatical functions; it should not apply if the verb is transitive and there is a slJl~J and an oB3, although f is unifiable with tile f-structure of a transitive verb as well as an intransitive one. There are several ways of ensuring the needed result: the valence of tire verb can be reflected in its semantic type; f-structures can be typed, with this rule applying only to intransitive f-structures (Zajac and Emele, 1990) ; or the PROD and its arguments can be separately specified, with the argumarts of the PRED specified as a list which can be mntched The derivation of the meaning f~ of an fstructure f with a PRED and SUBJ proceeds by applying the meaning of the PILED to the meaning of the suBJ. The associated assumption set is the union of the assmnptions from the PRED and the SUna. The f-structure for sentence 1 hcenses the following derivation and provides the expected meaning (under a null assumption set):",
                "cite_spans": [
                    {
                        "start": 484,
                        "end": 507,
                        "text": "(Zajac and Emele, 1990)",
                        "ref_id": "BIBREF16"
                    }
                ],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "ow,t(~,v)",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "(8) ['p RED f2:,craah (SUBJ) , J ks.., 'John']]",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "ow,t(~,v)",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "Lexically specified meanings:",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "ow,t(~,v)",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "(f~)~ = [0 ~-Ax.crash (~}] (fa),~ --[0 ~-j]",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "ow,t(~,v)",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "By rule 7:",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "ow,t(~,v)",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "(fl)~ = [0 U 0 l-Ax.erash(x)(j)] = [0 }-crash(j)] 4 Quantification",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "ow,t(~,v)",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "Sentence 9 contains a quantified noun phrase and has the meaning represented in (10):",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "ow,t(~,v)",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "(9) Every car crashed.",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "ow,t(~,v)",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "(10) every(Ay.car(y), Az.craMz(x))",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "ow,t(~,v)",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "This sentence has the f-structure shown in (11), constructed on the basis of the lexical entries below:",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "ow,t(~,v)",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "(11) [Pa~D 'c~ash <sv.J) ' ] SPEC LPRED 'every' L LPRgD 'car' J J every DET (T PREP) = 'every' T ~ = [0 ~-every] car N (T PRZ.)= 'car' (T P~ZD)~ = [0 ~ ay.ear(y)]",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "ow,t(~,v)",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "The type of the quantifier every is the familiar generalized quantifier type (e -+ t) ~ (e ~ t) ---* t: quantifiers are functions from properties to properties, yielding a truth value. The following schematic rule is necessary to interpret quantified noun phrases: The notation 'a, A' represents the set a plus the singleton A. By this rule, a quant assumption is added to the assumption set for the noun phrase. The quant assmnption acts like an element in a Cooper store, keeping together the information associated with the quantified noun phrase, ms in the quant asstmlption is the meaning of the specifier (here, every); z is the variable introduced by the quantifier as the meaning of the quantified norm phrase; and mp is the meaning of the PRED, which will form the first argument of the generalized quantifier every when quantifier discharge takes place. The derivation of the meaning of sentence 9 according to the rnles given thus far proceeds as follows: ",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "ow,t(~,v)",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "By this discharge rule, the quant assumption is removed from the assumption set, the variable x introduced by the quantifier assmnption is abstracted out of the scope SCOPE (required to be of type t), and the quantifier is applied to its scope. The syntactic licensing environment is the f-structure f. in this rule, f is lmeonstrained; there are no conditions on f. This means that the quantifier discharge rule has art unrestricted syntactic licensing condition. A quantifier may scope over any syntactic constituent, as long as it is of the correct semantic type. 5",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Conditions on f: none",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "To interpret sentence 9, diseh can now be applied to the sequent (fl)~ associated with the f-structure ]1:",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Conditions on f: none",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "disch (\u00a3, [{quant(every, ~, ) ~y.car(y))} b crash(z:)])",
                "cite_spans": [
                    {
                        "start": 6,
                        "end": 29,
                        "text": "(\u00a3, [{quant(every, ~, )",
                        "ref_id": null
                    }
                ],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Conditions on f: none",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "= [0 ]-every (Xy.car (y), Xx.crash(x))]",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Conditions on f: none",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "The result is the meaning of fl with all assumptions discharged. I will assume that what is generally referred to as the 'meaning' of an utterance is the meazfing obtained when all assumptions have been discharged.",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Conditions on f: none",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "In general, assumptions may be discharged after any application of a functor to an argument, as long as the syntactic enviromnent for assumption discharge has been met. Thus, a predicate apply can be defined:",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Conditions on f: none",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "(15) apply(f, [a~ ~ Fun], [aA ~ Arg]) d9 discharge(I, [aF UaA '-Fun (Avg)])",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Conditions on f: none",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "apply operates on sequents in a syntactic licensing environment f. discharge(f, S) is the result of applying any number of discharge (disch) rules licensed by the syntactic configuration f to S. (Note that apply is not a function, since the result of apply depends on the Immber and the choice of assumptions to be discharged.) By this function application rule for sequents, then, the meaning of the fimctor is applied to the meaning of the argunlent; the union of the functor assumptions and the argmnent assumptions is taken; and some number of discharge rules may be applied. This definition of apply will be used ~Here [ will not discuss conditions on preferred scopes for quantifiers (such as the tendency for the quantifier each to outscope other quantifiers, or for quantifiers to scope inside the clause in which they appear).",
                "cite_spans": [
                    {
                        "start": 133,
                        "end": 140,
                        "text": "(disch)",
                        "ref_id": null
                    }
                ],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Conditions on f: none",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "ACTES DE COLING-92, NANTES, 23-28 ho~r 1992 2 1 5 in the tbllowing to apply predicates to their arguments and to permit subsequent assumption discharge.",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Conditions on f: none",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "Given this new definition of apply, interpretation rule 7 for clauses headed by intransitive verbs can be restated:",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Conditions on f: none",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "(16) Clause with intransitive verb:",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Conditions on f: none",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "The interpretation for an f-structure f, representing an umnodified clause with an intransitive verb, is obtained by applying the pREI) P to the SuBJ S in the syntactic heensing enviroltment f. In general, f~, will constitute an assignment of f to a sequent that satisfies the constraints given by the lexical entries and the rules of interpretation. It should be noted that rule 16 is incomplete in providing interpretations only for sentences not involving adverbial modification; an analysis of adverbials, though straightforward in this framework, will not be provided here.",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Conditions on f: none",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "Rule 12 for tile interpretation of quantified norm plLrases is incomplete, since it apphes only to unmodified nominals. Consider sentence (17), its fstructure, displayed in Figure 1 , and its meaning, ,elp~ = [,el(x) ~ x: e}",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [
                    {
                        "start": 173,
                        "end": 181,
                        "text": "Figure 1",
                        "ref_id": null
                    }
                ],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Nominal modification",
                "sec_num": "5"
            },
            {
                "text": "The relative pronoun must appear in the fronted TOPIC constituent. This is indicated in the second condition by the regular expression TOPIC OF*; this expression involves functional uncertainty (Kaplan and Maxwell, 1988) and requires that the relative pronoun relp must appear at the end of a path that is a member of the language described by the regular exprestmn. Here, the path expression does not constrain where the relative pronoun may be found within the fronted constituent (OF* is a sequence of zero or more grammatical functions); a more complete syntactic analysis of relative clauses would constrain the path appropriately. The result of the application of rule 21 is that the variable introduced by the relative pronoun is abstracted out.",
                "cite_spans": [
                    {
                        "start": 194,
                        "end": 220,
                        "text": "(Kaplan and Maxwell, 1988)",
                        "ref_id": "BIBREF8"
                    }
                ],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Nominal modification",
                "sec_num": "5"
            },
            {
                "text": "The value of the MOPS attribute is a set offstructures, interpreted according to the following r ule:",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Nominal modification",
                "sec_num": "5"
            },
            {
                "text": "(22) The semantic value of a set off-structures is the set of corresponding sequents. If F is a set of f-structures:",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Nominal modification",
                "sec_num": "5"
            },
            {
                "text": "F~--{f~rfc F}",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Nominal modification",
                "sec_num": "5"
            },
            {
                "text": "The rule for the interpretation of quantified noun phrases with nominal modification is given in Figure 2 . According to this rule, the derivation of the meaning of a quantified noun phrase proceeds by introducing a variable (x in Figure 2 ) under a quant assumption, consisting of the meaning of the specifier of the noun phrase, the variable, and the quantifier restriction ILEST.",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [
                    {
                        "start": 97,
                        "end": 105,
                        "text": "Figure 2",
                        "ref_id": null
                    },
                    {
                        "start": 231,
                        "end": 239,
                        "text": "Figure 2",
                        "ref_id": null
                    }
                ],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Nominal modification",
                "sec_num": "5"
            },
            {
                "text": "Recall the definition of apply given in 15:",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Nominal modification",
                "sec_num": "5"
            },
            {
                "text": "(23) apply(f, jaR ~-Fun], [aA F-Arg]) d~=y discharge(f, [aF U aA ~-Fun (Arg)})",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Nominal modification",
                "sec_num": "5"
            },
            {
                "text": "This definition will now be extended so apply can take a set ofsequents as its argument. The result is a set of sequents:",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Nominal modification",
                "sec_num": "5"
            },
            {
                "text": "(24) apply (f, Set, Arg) dff {s [ Fun E Set A s = apply (f, Fun, Arg)}",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Nominal modification",
                "sec_num": "5"
            },
            {
                "text": "The function conj is defined as the conjunction of a set of sequents; the matrices of the sequents are conjoined and the union of the assumptions is taken:",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Nominal modification",
                "sec_num": "5"
            },
            {
                "text": "(25) conj (S) de=/[ U a F-A M] IaP-M]eS [a~-M]ES",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Nominal modification",
                "sec_num": "5"
            },
            {
                "text": "nEST, then, is the conjunction of the result of applying the PRED meaning and the meaning of each of the modifiers in MOPS to the variable z.",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Nominal modification",
                "sec_num": "5"
            },
            {
                "text": "Finally, a rule for the interpretation of a clause containing a transitive verb is also needed: The interpretation of sentence 17 can now be derived; the derivation is sketched in Figure 3 The small fragment of English presented above is easily extensible to handle other semantic phenomena, such as sentential modification. Constraining semantic derivations with respect to fstructures is preferable to the standard approach of using phrase structure trees, since f-structures need not be specifically tailored to solving the interpretation problem, but are motivated on independent grounds. The categorial semantics rules presented above provide an interpretation for fstructures directly, without the need for constructing an intermediate level of 'logical form'.",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [
                    {
                        "start": 180,
                        "end": 188,
                        "text": "Figure 3",
                        "ref_id": null
                    }
                ],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Nominal modification",
                "sec_num": "5"
            }
        ],
        "back_matter": [
            {
                "text": "For invaluable assistance, I am very grateful to Feruando Pereira and Stuart Shieber. Many thanks are also due to John Lamping and Vijay Saraswat for their help and encouragement, and to Joan Bresnan, Ken Kahn, Ron Kaplan, Lauri Karttunen, Chris Manning, John Maxwell, and Annie Zaenen for helpful comments and discussion.",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Acknowledgements",
                "sec_num": "7"
            }
        ],
        "bib_entries": {
            "BIBREF0": {
                "ref_id": "b0",
                "title": "Topic, pronoun, and agreement in Chiche~'a. Language",
                "authors": [
                    {
                        "first": "Joan",
                        "middle": [],
                        "last": "Bresnan",
                        "suffix": ""
                    },
                    {
                        "first": "Sam",
                        "middle": [
                            "A"
                        ],
                        "last": "Mchombo",
                        "suffix": ""
                    }
                ],
                "year": 1987,
                "venue": "",
                "volume": "63",
                "issue": "",
                "pages": "741--782",
                "other_ids": {},
                "num": null,
                "urls": [],
                "raw_text": "Joan Bresnan and Sam A. Mchombo. 1987. Topic, pronoun, and agreement in Chiche~'a. Language, 63(4):741-782.",
                "links": null
            },
            "BIBREF1": {
                "ref_id": "b1",
                "title": "The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations",
                "authors": [],
                "year": 1982,
                "venue": "",
                "volume": "",
                "issue": "",
                "pages": "",
                "other_ids": {},
                "num": null,
                "urls": [],
                "raw_text": "Joan Bresnan, editor. 1982. The Mental Rep- resentation of Grammatical Relations. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.",
                "links": null
            },
            "BIBREF2": {
                "ref_id": "b2",
                "title": "Quantification and Syntactic Theory",
                "authors": [],
                "year": null,
                "venue": "Synthese Language Library. D. Reidel",
                "volume": "21",
                "issue": "",
                "pages": "",
                "other_ids": {},
                "num": null,
                "urls": [],
                "raw_text": "Robin Cooper. t983. Quantification and Syntac- tic Theory, volume 21 of Synthese Language Library. D. Reidel, Dordrecht.",
                "links": null
            },
            "BIBREF3": {
                "ref_id": "b3",
                "title": "Ellipsis and higher-order unification",
                "authors": [
                    {
                        "first": "Mary",
                        "middle": [],
                        "last": "Dalrymple",
                        "suffix": ""
                    },
                    {
                        "first": "Stuart",
                        "middle": [
                            "M"
                        ],
                        "last": "",
                        "suffix": ""
                    },
                    {
                        "first": "Fernando",
                        "middle": [
                            "C N"
                        ],
                        "last": "Pereira",
                        "suffix": ""
                    }
                ],
                "year": 1991,
                "venue": "Linguistics and Philosophy",
                "volume": "14",
                "issue": "4",
                "pages": "399--452",
                "other_ids": {},
                "num": null,
                "urls": [],
                "raw_text": "Mary Dalrymple, Stuart M. 8hieber, and Fer- nando C. N. Pereira. 1991. Ellipsis and higher-order unification. Linguistics and Philosophy, 14(4):399-452.",
                "links": null
            },
            "BIBREF4": {
                "ref_id": "b4",
                "title": "Grammatical relations and Montague Grammar",
                "authors": [
                    {
                        "first": "R",
                        "middle": [],
                        "last": "David",
                        "suffix": ""
                    },
                    {
                        "first": "",
                        "middle": [],
                        "last": "Dowty",
                        "suffix": ""
                    }
                ],
                "year": 1982,
                "venue": "The Na. tune of Syntactic Representation",
                "volume": "",
                "issue": "",
                "pages": "79--130",
                "other_ids": {},
                "num": null,
                "urls": [],
                "raw_text": "David R. Dowty. 1982. Grammatical relations and Montague Grammar. In Pauline Jacob- son and Geoffrey K. Pullum, editors, The Na. tune of Syntactic Representation, pages 79- 130. Reidel, Dordrecht.",
                "links": null
            },
            "BIBREF5": {
                "ref_id": "b5",
                "title": "Projections and semantic description in Lexical-Functional Grammar",
                "authors": [
                    {
                        "first": "Ronald",
                        "middle": [
                            "M"
                        ],
                        "last": "Per-Kristian Ttalvorsen",
                        "suffix": ""
                    },
                    {
                        "first": "",
                        "middle": [],
                        "last": "Kaplan",
                        "suffix": ""
                    }
                ],
                "year": 1988,
                "venue": "Proceedings of the International Conference on Fifth Generation Computer Systems",
                "volume": "",
                "issue": "",
                "pages": "1116--1122",
                "other_ids": {},
                "num": null,
                "urls": [],
                "raw_text": "Per-Kristian ttalvorsen and Ronald M. Kaplan. 1988. Projections and semantic description in Lexical-Functional Grammar. In Proceed- ings of the International Conference on Fifth Generation Computer Systems, pages 1116- 1122, Tokyo, Japan. Institute for New Gen- eration Systems.",
                "links": null
            },
            "BIBREF6": {
                "ref_id": "b6",
                "title": "Semantics for Lexical-Functional Grammar",
                "authors": [
                    {
                        "first": "",
                        "middle": [],
                        "last": "Per-Kristian Haivorsen",
                        "suffix": ""
                    }
                ],
                "year": 1983,
                "venue": "Linguistic Inquiry",
                "volume": "14",
                "issue": "4",
                "pages": "567--615",
                "other_ids": {},
                "num": null,
                "urls": [],
                "raw_text": "Per-Kristian Haivorsen. 1983. Semantics for Lexical-Functional Grammar. Linguistic In- quiry, 14(4):567-615.",
                "links": null
            },
            "BIBREF7": {
                "ref_id": "b7",
                "title": "Lexical-Functional Grammar: A formal system for grammatical representation",
                "authors": [
                    {
                        "first": "M",
                        "middle": [],
                        "last": "Ronald",
                        "suffix": ""
                    },
                    {
                        "first": "Joan",
                        "middle": [],
                        "last": "Kaplan",
                        "suffix": ""
                    },
                    {
                        "first": "",
                        "middle": [],
                        "last": "Bresnam",
                        "suffix": ""
                    }
                ],
                "year": 1982,
                "venue": "",
                "volume": "",
                "issue": "",
                "pages": "173--281",
                "other_ids": {},
                "num": null,
                "urls": [],
                "raw_text": "Ronald M. Kaplan and Joan Bresnam 1982. Lexical-Functional Grammar: A formal sys- tem for grammatical representation. In Joan Bresnan, editor, The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations, pages 173-281.",
                "links": null
            },
            "BIBREF8": {
                "ref_id": "b8",
                "title": "An algorithm for functional uncertainty",
                "authors": [
                    {
                        "first": "M",
                        "middle": [],
                        "last": "Ronald",
                        "suffix": ""
                    },
                    {
                        "first": "John",
                        "middle": [
                            "T"
                        ],
                        "last": "Kaplan",
                        "suffix": ""
                    },
                    {
                        "first": "",
                        "middle": [],
                        "last": "Maxwell",
                        "suffix": ""
                    }
                ],
                "year": 1988,
                "venue": "Proceedings of COLING-88",
                "volume": "1",
                "issue": "",
                "pages": "297--302",
                "other_ids": {},
                "num": null,
                "urls": [],
                "raw_text": "Ronald M. Kaplan and John T. Maxwell. 1988. An algorithm for functional uncertainty. In Proceedings of COLING-88, volume 1, pages 297-302, Budapest.",
                "links": null
            },
            "BIBREF9": {
                "ref_id": "b9",
                "title": "Three seductions of computational psycholinguistics",
                "authors": [
                    {
                        "first": "Ronald",
                        "middle": [
                            "M"
                        ],
                        "last": "Kaplan",
                        "suffix": ""
                    }
                ],
                "year": 1987,
                "venue": "Linguistic Theory and Computer Applications",
                "volume": "",
                "issue": "",
                "pages": "149--188",
                "other_ids": {},
                "num": null,
                "urls": [],
                "raw_text": "Ronald M. Kaplan. 1987. Three seductions of computational psycholinguistics. In Pe- ter Whitelock, Harold Somers, Paul Bennett, Rod Johnson, and Mary McGee Wood, edi- tors, Linguistic Theory and Computer Appli- cations, pages 149-188. Academic Press, Lon- don.",
                "links": null
            },
            "BIBREF10": {
                "ref_id": "b10",
                "title": "Formal Philosophy",
                "authors": [
                    {
                        "first": "Richard",
                        "middle": [],
                        "last": "Montague",
                        "suffix": ""
                    }
                ],
                "year": 1974,
                "venue": "",
                "volume": "",
                "issue": "",
                "pages": "",
                "other_ids": {},
                "num": null,
                "urls": [],
                "raw_text": "Richard Montague. 1974. Formal Philosophy.",
                "links": null
            },
            "BIBREF11": {
                "ref_id": "b11",
                "title": "Incremental interpretation",
                "authors": [
                    {
                        "first": "C",
                        "middle": [
                            "N"
                        ],
                        "last": "Fernando",
                        "suffix": ""
                    },
                    {
                        "first": "Martha",
                        "middle": [
                            "E"
                        ],
                        "last": "Pereira",
                        "suffix": ""
                    },
                    {
                        "first": "",
                        "middle": [],
                        "last": "Pollack",
                        "suffix": ""
                    }
                ],
                "year": 1991,
                "venue": "Artificial Intelligence",
                "volume": "50",
                "issue": "",
                "pages": "37--82",
                "other_ids": {},
                "num": null,
                "urls": [],
                "raw_text": "Fernando C. N. Pereira and Martha E. Pollack. 1991. Incremental interpretation. Artificial Intelligence, 50:37-82.",
                "links": null
            },
            "BIBREF12": {
                "ref_id": "b12",
                "title": "Categorial semantics and scoping",
                "authors": [
                    {
                        "first": "C",
                        "middle": [
                            "N"
                        ],
                        "last": "Fernando",
                        "suffix": ""
                    },
                    {
                        "first": "",
                        "middle": [],
                        "last": "Pereira",
                        "suffix": ""
                    }
                ],
                "year": 1990,
                "venue": "Computational Linguistics",
                "volume": "16",
                "issue": "1",
                "pages": "1--10",
                "other_ids": {},
                "num": null,
                "urls": [],
                "raw_text": "Fernando C. N. Pereira. 1990. Categorial seman- tics and scoping. Computational Linguistics, 16(1):1-10.",
                "links": null
            },
            "BIBREF13": {
                "ref_id": "b13",
                "title": "Deductive interpretation",
                "authors": [
                    {
                        "first": "C",
                        "middle": [
                            "N"
                        ],
                        "last": "Fernando",
                        "suffix": ""
                    },
                    {
                        "first": "",
                        "middle": [],
                        "last": "Pereira",
                        "suffix": ""
                    }
                ],
                "year": 1991,
                "venue": "ESPRIT Symposium on Natural Language and Speech. Brussels, November",
                "volume": "",
                "issue": "",
                "pages": "",
                "other_ids": {},
                "num": null,
                "urls": [],
                "raw_text": "Fernando C. N. Pereira. 1991. Deductive inter- pretation. In ESPRIT Symposium on Natu- ral Language and Speech. Brussels, Novem- ber 1991.",
                "links": null
            },
            "BIBREF15": {
                "ref_id": "b15",
                "title": "Syntaz and Semantics",
                "authors": [],
                "year": null,
                "venue": "",
                "volume": "1",
                "issue": "",
                "pages": "",
                "other_ids": {},
                "num": null,
                "urls": [],
                "raw_text": "Information-Based Syntaz and Semantics, volume 1. CSLI/University of Chicago Press, Stanford University. CSLI Lecture Notes, Number 13.",
                "links": null
            },
            "BIBREF16": {
                "ref_id": "b16",
                "title": "Typed unification grasnmars",
                "authors": [
                    {
                        "first": "Romi",
                        "middle": [],
                        "last": "Zajac",
                        "suffix": ""
                    },
                    {
                        "first": "Martin",
                        "middle": [],
                        "last": "Emele",
                        "suffix": ""
                    }
                ],
                "year": 1990,
                "venue": "Proceedings of COLING-90",
                "volume": "3",
                "issue": "",
                "pages": "293--298",
                "other_ids": {},
                "num": null,
                "urls": [],
                "raw_text": "ROmi Zajac and Martin Emele. 1990. Typed unification grasnmars. In Proceedings of COLING-90, vohtme 3, pages 293-298, Helsinki.",
                "links": null
            }
        },
        "ref_entries": {
            "FIGREF0": {
                "type_str": "figure",
                "text": "against, as in recent work by John Maxwell, Ron Kaplan, and others. ACRES DE COLING-92, NANTES, 23-28 AOUT 1992 2 l 3 PROC. OV COL1NG-92, NANTES, AUG. 23-28, 1992 [as ~-ms] f,, = [ap U as ~-mv (ms)]",
                "uris": null,
                "num": null
            },
            "FIGREF1": {
                "type_str": "figure",
                "text": "Every car that John owned crashed.",
                "uris": null,
                "num": null
            },
            "FIGREF2": {
                "type_str": "figure",
                "text": ".ea~ (~) A ow,~ (j, ~), ~y.cra~h (y))These lexical entries are necessary: relative clause contains a fronted constituent (a TOPIC; seeBresnan and Mchombo (1987)) which is related to a gapped position in tim sentence. This fronted constituent contains a relative pronoun or that. Tile relative pronoun nlay be deeply embedded in the fronted PROC. ol, COLING-92, NANTES, AUG. 23-28, 1992 constituent, as in the ease of pied piping. Semantically, the interpretation of a relative clause is the property obtained when the position filled by the relative pronoun is abstracted out. For example, here are some relative clauses with a rough representation of their memfings:(19) a. (the man) that I saw: Az.saw(1,~) b. (the man) whose brother's ear I drove: A~.drove( I, z ' s brother's car) I assume that relative pronouns such as that or whose introduce a variable under a tel assumption which is abstracted out in the course of the derivation. The interpretation of a relative clause is obtained by a rule allowing the discharge of the rel assumption associated with the relative pronoun (and possibly other assumptions as well): (20) Relative clause interpretation: [TOPIC TOP] f : [REL R J ~ \"f~ = discharge(f,R~) The tel discharge rule applies only under syntactically licensed conditions: (21) Relative clause assumption discharge: disch( f , [aREL, tel(x) ~ RE L :t]) = [aRE L ~-Az.REL l Conditions: GF*)=relp: [PREDTypE aELJPRO]",
                "uris": null,
                "num": null
            },
            "FIGREF3": {
                "type_str": "figure",
                "text": "(f, apply(f, P~, O~), S~)",
                "uris": null,
                "num": null
            },
            "FIGREF4": {
                "type_str": "figure",
                "text": "F-structure for Every car that John owned crashed. -mnssr] = couj (apply(f, M~ U {P~}, [O ~-z])) f ~ = [a S 13 aREST , quant (ms, y, .'~x.mREST) ~-y] Quantified noun phrase interpretation rule By rule 26 for clauses with transitive verbs and the lexical entries given: A~ = [{tel(x)} ~ own(j,~)] By rule 20 for relative clauses, allowing the application of rule 21 for tile discharge of relative pronoun assumptions: f4~ = [O I-Ax.own(j, x)] By rule 22 for interpreting sets of f-structures: h~ = {[0 k Ax.own(j,x)]} By the rule for quantified noun phrases given in Figure 2 and the lexical entries tbr every and car: h. = [{q~ant(everv, y, ~.ear(~) A own(j, ~))} ~ Yl By rule 16 for clauses with intransitive verbs: f~ = [{q~,ant(every, y, ~x.car(x) A own(j, x)} ~ crash(y)] By quantifier discharge rule 14: A. = [0 ~ every (~z.ear(z) A own(j, x), Av.era~h(y))] Figure 3: Derivation of the interpretation of Every car that John owned crashed.",
                "uris": null,
                "num": null
            }
        }
    }
}