Polarity sensitivity and evaluation order in type-logical grammar

HLT-NAACL 2004 - Human Language Technology Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Short Papers

Volumn , Issue , 2004, Pages 129-132

  Shan, Chung Chieh ^a  

^a HARVARD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EVALUATION ORDER; LINEAR ORDER; LOGICAL ANALYSIS; NEGATIVE POLARITY ITEMS;

EID: 33751502539     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (16)

1. Raffaella Bernardi and Richard Moot. 2001. Generalized quantifiers in declarative and interrogative sentences. Journal of Language and Computation, 1(3):1–19.
2. Raffaella Bernardi. 2002. Reasoning with Polarity in Categorial Type Logic. Ph.D. thesis, Utrecht Institute of Linguistics (OTS), Utrecht University.
3. Daniel Büring. 2001. A situation semantics for binding out of DP. In Rachel Hastings, Brendan Jackson, and Zsofia Zvolensky, editors, SALT XI: Semantics and Linguistic Theory, pages 56–75, Ithaca. Cornell University Press.
4. Olivier Danvy and Andrzej Filinski. 1990. Abstracting control. In Proceedings of the 1990 ACM Conference on Lisp and Functional Programming, pages 151–160, New York, March. ACM Press.
5. David R. Dowty. 1994. The role of negative polarity and concord marking in natural language reasoning. In Mandy Harvey and Lynn Santelmann, editors, SALT IV: Semantics and Linguistic Theory, Ithaca. Cornell University Press.
6. Matthias Felleisen. 1988. The theory and practice of first-class prompts. In POPL’88: Conference Record of the Annual ACM Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, pages 180–190, New York. ACM Press.
7. John Fry. 1997. Negative polarity licensing at the syntax-semantics interface. In Philip R. Cohen and Wolfgang Wahlster, editors, Proceedings of the 35th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and 8th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 144–150, San Francisco. Morgan Kaufmann.
8. John Fry. 1999. Proof nets and negative polarity licensing. In Mary Dalrymple, editor, Semantics and Syntax in Lexical Functional Grammar: The Resource Logic Approach, chapter 3, pages 91–116. MIT Press, Cambridge.
9. Manfred Krifka. 1995. The semantics and pragmatics of polarity items. Linguistic Analysis, 25:209–257.
10. Anthony S. Kroch. 1974. The Semantics of Scope in English. Ph.D. thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Reprinted by New York: Garland, 1979.
11. William A. Ladusaw. 1979. Polarity Sensitivity as Inherent Scope Relations. Ph.D. thesis, Department of Linguistics, University of Massachusetts, August. Reprinted by New York: Garland, 1980.
12. Michael Moortgat. 1996a. Categorial type logics. In Johan van Benthem and Alice ter Meulen, editors, Handbook of Logic and Language, chapter 2. Elsevier Science, Amsterdam.
13. Michael Moortgat. 1996b. Generalized quantification and discontinuous type constructors. In Harry C. Bunt and Arthur van Horck, editors, Discontinuous Constituency, pages 181–207. de Gruyter, Berlin.
14. Richard Moot. 2002. Proof Nets for Linguistic Analysis. Ph.D. thesis, Utrecht Institute of Linguistics (OTS), Utrecht University.
15. Anna Szabolcsi. 2004. Positive polarity—negative polarity. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 22(2):409–452, May.
16. Edwin Williams. 1997. Blocking and anaphora. Linguistic Inquiry, 28(4):577–628.