Final assignment (due midnight Thursday 7/30)
(1) There are (at least) two solutions for this question. One is to follow the strategy described in the Day 2 slides (p.32) and slant the quantifier alone in the right category. test(final1) gives this solution (and (5) is the relevant derivation). The other approach that one of you has come up with is to slant down the whole shared string "John gave a book" in the category S/(VP\VP)/PP. test(final1alt) gives this solution (and (2) is the relevant derivation).
(2) The point of this example was to show that the S|NP|NP analysis of parasitic scope extends straightforwardly to the RNR case. So, all you need to do is to modify the syntactic category for thesame in the lexicon to S|(S/NP)|NP and define a conjunction entry for 'sums' of S/NP type meanings. The proof strategy is explained in the Kubota 2015 paper (see p.26-27). final(test2) gives the solution and (3) is the relevant derivation.
Yusuke Kubota (firstname.lastname@example.org), University of Tsukuba, Ohio State University
Robert Levine (email@example.com), Ohio State University
http://www.u.tsukuba.ac.jp/~kubota.yusuke.fn/lsa/lsa-institute2015.html (this page)
The goal of this course is to familiarize students with Type-Logical Categorial Grammar (TLCG) as a framework that provides a new perspective on the syntax/semantics interface of natural language. While TLCG has so far been mostly studied in its connection to mathematical logic, our course emphasizes its value to the working linguist as a framework for characterizing linguistic generalizations, especially in empirical domains that have been widely regarded as problematic or even intractable in the mainstream linguistic literature, including both transformational and nontransformational approaches. To this end, we introduce a new version of TLCG which synthsizes two strands of research in the logical tradition, one old (Lambek calculus) and the other relatively new ('Lambda grammars').
Saieh Hall for Economics 242
Week 1: Basics
Day 1 (7/20): Introducing categorial grammar, using a parser
Reading: Hybrid Type-Logical Categorial Grammar (read up to the end of section 3.2)
Day 2 (7/23): Adding 'movement' and flexible constituency
Readings: Hybrid Type-Logical Categorial Grammar (read (at least) up to the end of section 3.6)
Week 2: Advanced topics
Day 3 (7/27): Advanced topics I
Day 4 (7/30): Advanced topics II, wrap-up
We'll ask you to complete one of the following two tasks that you choose:
Do some moderately challenging derivations that we assign (this will be given at some point during the second week).
Develop a toy grammar in the LinearOne parser, gradually adding lexical entries as we extend empirical coverage, and demonstrate how it handles some moderately challenging empirical phenomenon that the student chooses him/herself (this can be either one of the topics we cover in the course or something else).
Note: These are somewhat advanced and some of them require additional reading. Since these tasks are challenging, we'll give you an A even if you don't come up with a completely satisfactory solution, as long as your fragment contains some thoughtful initial attempts at implementing these analyses (which could be extended to a more complete analysis with more work).
Implement the 'affix-hopping' analysis of auxiliaries from Greg Kobele's course on MG and show how it interacts with coordination (e.g. John kicked and opened the box, John has been reading and will be discussing the book). [You don't need to implement the affix realization part. Just pretend that a morphological component handles this appropriately.]
Read the Winter/Zwarts article on incorporating event variables in ACG. Implement their analysis in the parser.
Implement the Jacobson 2007 analysis of Principle B effects. [For convenience, treat the presupposition on verb lexical entries she introduces as entailments.]
Implement the Jacobson analysis of ACD discussed in our paper on pseudogapping. You should be able to do this by combining our pseudogapping analysis and the Muskens analysis of filler-gap dependency (Exercise B from Day 2).
Implement the Morrill analysis of pied-piping described in Carpenter 1997, pp.364-367.
See also the following for more in-depth introductions to TLCG:
See YK's publications page for other papers.