Đang chuẩn bị nút TẢI XUỐNG, xin hãy chờ
Tải xuống
Certain restrictions on possible scopings of quantifiednoun phrases in natural language are usually expressed in terms of formal constraints on binding at a level of logical form. Such reliance on the form rather than the content of semantic interpretations goes against the spirit of compositionality. I will show that those scoping restrictions follow from simple and fundamental facts about functional application and abstraction, and can be expressed as constraints on the derivation of possible meanings for sentences rather than constraints of the alleged forms of those meanings. . | A Calculus for Semantic Composition and Scoping Fernando C.N. Pereira Artificial Intelligence Center SRI International 333 Ravenswood Ave. Menlo Park CA 94025 USA Abstract Certain restrictions on possible scopings of quantified noun phrases in natural language are usually expressed in terms of formal constraints on binding at a level of logical form. Such reliance on the form rather than the content of semantic interpretations goes against the spirit of compositionality. I will show that those scoping restrictions follow from simple and fundamental facts about functional application and abstraction and can be expressed as constraints on the derivation of possible meanings for sentences rather than constraints of the alleged forms of those meanings. 1 An Obvious Constraint Treatments of quantifier scope in Montague grammar Montague 1973 Dowty et al. 1981 Cooper 1983 transformational grammar Reinhart 1983 May 1985 Heim 1982 Roberts 1987 and computational linguistics Hobbs and Shieber 1987 Moran 1988 have depended implicitly or explicitly on a constraint on possible logical forms to explain why examples1 such as 1 A woman who saw every man disliked him are ungrammatical and why in examples such as 2 Every man saw a friend of his 3 Every admirer of a picture of himself is vain the every. noun phrase must have wider scope than the a. noun phrase if the pronoun in each example is assumed to be bound by its antecedent. What exactly counts as bound anaphora varies between different accounts of the phenomena but the rough intuition is that semantically a bound pronoun plays the role of a variable bound by the logical form a quantifier of its antecedent. Example 1 above is then explained by noting that 1 In all the examples that follow the pronoun and its intended antecedent are italicized. As usual starred examples are supposed to be ungrammatical. its logical form would be something like 3w.woman w Vm.MAN m saw w m disliked w m but this is ill-formed because variable m .
