1932
0
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Annual Review of Linguistics
  4. Volume 10, 2024
  5. Article

Annual Review of Linguistics

Volume 10, 2024

Types and Type Theories in Natural Language Analysis

Abstract

This article reviews the set of possible paths from a semantics based on Simple Type Theories (STTs) toward one based on Rich Type Theories (RTTs) and the motivations behind the move from one to the other. The main elements of this review are threefold. First, it provides a systematic overview of different STTs, including options for what to include as members of the set of basic types, and whether to assume type constructors additional to the one for constructing functional types. Second, this review discusses the main differences between STTs and RTTs, namely, that in RTTs but not in STTs, types are part of the object language. That is, one can refer to and reason with and about types. In turn, this makes available an alternative account of propositions to the one assumed in semantics in the Frege–Church–Montague tradition: Instead of being characterized as sets of possible worlds, propositions can be treated themselves as types, that is, as structured semantic objects. Third and finally, this review provides an outline of some of the main applications of RTTs, including hyperintensionality, quantification, anaphora, polysemy, and modification.

Keyword(s): hyperintensionality, semantics, theories of propositions, type theory
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-031422-113929
2024-01-16
2024-05-02
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/linguistics/10/1/annurev-linguistics-031422-113929.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-031422-113929&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Asher N. 2011. Lexical Meaning in Context: A Web of Words Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  2. Asher N, Pustejovsky J 2013. A type composition logic for generative lexicon. Advances in Generative Lexicon Theory J Pustejovsky, P Bouillon, H Isahara, K Kanzaki, C Lee 39–66. Dordrecht, Neth: Springer
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Barsalou LW 1992. Frames, concepts, and conceptual fields. Frames, Fields, and Contrasts: New Essays in Semantic and Lexical Organization E Kittay, A Lehrer 21–74. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Bassac C, Mery B, Retoré C. 2010. Towards a type-theoretical account of lexical semantics. J. Logic Lang. Inform. 19:2229–45
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Bekki D. 2014. Representing anaphora with dependent types. Logical Aspects of Computational Linguistics N Asher, S Soloviev 14–29. Berlin/Heidelberg, Ger: Springer
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Carpenter B. 1997. Type-Logical Semantics Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
  7. Chatzikyriakidis S, Cooper R. 2018. Type theory for natural language semantics. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.013.329
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  8. Chatzikyriakidis S, Cooper R, Gregoromichelaki E, Sutton PR. 2024. Theories of Types and the Structure of Meaning. Cambridge Elements Series Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press. In press
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Chatzikyriakidis S, Luo Z 2013. Adjectives in a modern type-theoretical setting. Proceedings of Formal Grammar, 17th and 18th International Conferences (FG 2012/2013) G Morrill, M Nederhof 159–74. Dordrecht, Neth: Springer
  10. Chatzikyriakidis S, Luo Z 2015. Individuation criteria, dot-types and copredication: a view from modern type theories. Proceedings of the 14th Meeting on the Mathematics of Language (MoL 2015) M Kuhlmann, M Kanazawa, GM Kobele 39–50. Stroudsburg, PA: Assoc. Comput. Linguist.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Chatzikyriakidis S, Luo Z. 2017. Adjectival and adverbial modification: the view from modern type theories. J. Logic Lang. Inform. 26:45–88
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Chatzikyriakidis S, Luo Z. 2018. Identity criteria of common nouns and dot-types for copredication. Oslo Stud. Lang. 10:2121–41
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Chatzikyriakidis S, Luo Z. 2020. Formal Semantics in Modern Type Theories London, UK/Hoboken, NJ: ISTE/Wiley
  14. Chierchia G, Turner R. 1988. Semantics and property theory. Linguist. Philos. 11:3261–302
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Church A. 1940. A formulation of the simple theory of types. J. Symb. Logic 5:256–68
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Cooper R. 2005. Austinian truth, attitudes and type theory. Res. Lang. Comput. 3:333–62
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Cooper R 2007. Copredication, dynamic generalized quantification and lexical innovation by coercion. Proceedings of GL 2007, Fourth International Workshop on Generative Approaches to the Lexicon P Bouillon, L Danlos, K Kanzaki 143–84. Geneva, Switz.: Univ. Geneva
  18. Cooper R. 2011. Copredication, quantification and frames. Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Logical Aspects of Computational Linguistics (LACL 2011) S Pogodalla, JP Prost 64–79. Berlin, Ger: Springer
  19. Cooper R 2012. Type theory and semantics in flux. Philosophy of Linguistics R Kempson, T Fernando, N Asher 271–323. Amsterdam, Neth: Elsevier
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Cooper R. 2023. From Perception to Communication: A Theory of Types for Action and Meaning Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
  21. Cooper R, Dobnik S, Lappin S, Larsson S. 2014. A probabilistic rich type theory for semantic interpretation. Proceedings of the EACL 2014 Workshop on Type Theory and Natural Language Semantics (TTNLS)72–79. Stroudsburg, PA: Assoc. Comput. Linguist.
  22. Cooper R, Dobnik S, Larsson S, Lappin S. 2015. Probabilistic type theory and natural language semantics. LiLT 10: https://doi.org/10.33011/lilt.v10i.1357
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  23. Cresswell M. 1977. The semantics of degree. Montague Grammar B Partee 261–92. New York, NY: Academic
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Curry HB. 1942. The inconsistency of certain formal logics. J. Symb. Logic 7:3115–17
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Curry HB, Feys R. 1958. Combinatory Logic, Vol. 1: Amsterdam, Neth.: North-Holland
  26. Dobnik S, Cooper R, Larsson S 2013. Modelling language, action and perception in type theory with records. Proceedings of the 7th International Workshop on Constraint Solving and Language Processing (CSLP 2012) D Duchier, Y Parmentier 70–91. Berlin, Ger: Springer
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Dowty DR, Wall RE, Peters S. 1981. Introduction to Montague Semantics Dordrecht, Neth: Kluwer
  28. Eshghi A, Gregoromichelaki E, Howes C 2023. Action coordination and learning in dialogue. Probabilistic Approaches to Linguistic Theory J-P Bernardy, R Blanck, S Chatzikyriakidis, S Lappin, A Maskharashvili 357–418. Stanford, CA: CSLI
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Filip H, Sutton PR 2017. Singular count NPs in measure constructions. Proceedings of the 27th Conference on Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT 27) D Burgdorf, J Collard, S Maspong, B Stefánsdóttir 340–57. Washington, DC: Linguist. Soc. Am.
  30. Gallin D. 1975. Intensional and Higher-Order Modal Logic Amsterdam, Neth.: North-Holland
  31. Ginzburg J. 2012. The Interactive Stance: Meaning for Conversation Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
  32. Gotham M. 2014. Copredication, quantification and individuation. PhD Thesis Univ. College London London, UK:
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Gotham M. 2017. Composing criteria of individuation in copredication. J. Semant. 34:2333–71
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Gotham M. 2021. Property inheritance, deferred reference and copredication. J. Semant. 39:187–116
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Gregoromichelaki E 2018. Quotation in dialogue. The Semantics and Pragmatics of Quotation P Saka, M Johnson 195–255. Cham, Switz: Springer
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Gregoromichelaki E, Chatzikyriakidis S, Eshghi A, Hough J, Howes C et al. 2020. Affordance competition in dialogue: the case of syntactic universals. Proceedings of the 24th Workshop on the Semantics and Pragmatics of Dialogue (SemDial 2020) S Malamud, J Pustejovsky, J Ginzburg 204–19. Waltham, MA: Brandeis Univ.
  37. Gregoromichelaki E, Eshghi A, Howes C, Mills GJ, Kempson R et al. 2022. Language and cognition as distributed process interactions. Proceedings of the 26th Workshop on the Semantics and Pragmatics of Dialogue (SemDial 2022) E Gregoromichelaki, J Hough, JD Kelleher 160–71. Dublin, Irel: Technol. Univ. Dublin
  38. Grudzińska J, Zawadowski M. 2014. System with generalized quantifiers on dependent types for anaphora. Proceedings of the EACL 2014 Workshop on Type Theory and Natural Language Semantics (TTNLS)10–18. Stroudsburg, PA: Assoc. Comput. Linguist.
  39. Grudzińska J, Zawadowski M. 2019. Inverse linking, possessive weak definites and haddock descriptions: a unified dependent type account. J. Logic Lang. Inform. 28:2239–60
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Grudzińska J, Zawadowski M. 2020. A scope-taking system with dependent types and continuations. Proceedings of the Symposium on Logic and Algorithms in Computational Linguistics 2018 (LACompLing2018) R Loukanova 155–76. Cham, Switz: Springer
  41. Hough J, Kennington C, Schlangen D, Ginzburg J. 2015. Incremental semantics for dialogue processing: requirements, and a comparison of two approaches. Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Computational Semantics (IWCS 2015)206–16. Stroudsburg, PA: Assoc. Comput. Linguist.
  42. Hough J, Purver M. 2014. Probabilistic type theory for incremental dialogue processing. Proceedings of the EACL 2014 Workshop on Type Theory and Natural Language Semantics (TTNLS)80–88. Stroudsburg, PA: Assoc. Comput. Linguist.
  43. Howard W 1980. The formulae-as-types notion of construction. To H. B. Curry: Essays on Combinatory Logic, Lambda Calculus and Formalism R Hindley, JP Seldin 479–90. London, UK: Academic
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Kamp H, Reyle U. 1993. From Discourse to Logic Dordrecht, Neth: Kluwer
  45. Kamp H, van Genabith J, Reyle U 2011. Discourse Representation Theory. Handbook of Philosophical Logic, Vol. 15 D Gabbay, F Guenthner 125–394. Dordrecht, Neth: Springer
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Kaplan D. 1978. On the logic of demonstratives. J. Philos. Logic 8:81–98
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Kaplan D. 1989. Demonstratives: an essay on the semantics, logic, metaphysics and epistemology of demonstratives and other indexicals. Themes from Kaplan J Almog, J Perry, H Wettstein 481–563. Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Kempson R, Meyer-Viol W, Gabbay D. 2001. Dynamic Syntax Oxford, UK: Blackwell
  49. Kennedy C, McNally L. 2005. Scale structure and the semantic typology of gradable predicates. Language 81:345–81
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Klein E. 1980. A semantics for positive and comparative adjectives. Linguist. Philos. 4:1–45
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Kohlhase M. 1992. Unification in order-sorted type theory. Proceedings of the International Conference on Logic Programming and Automated Reasoning (LPAR'92) A Voronkov 421–32. Berlin, Ger: Springer
  52. Kohlhase M. 1994. A mechanization of sorted higher-order logic based on the resolution principle. PhD Thesis Saarland Univ. Saarbrücken, Ger:.
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Krifka M. 1989. Nominal reference, temporal constitution and quantification in event semantics. Semantics and Contextual Expression R Bartsch, J van Benthem, P van Emde Boas 75–115. Dordrecht, Neth: Foris
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Krifka M 1995. Common nouns: a contrastive analysis of English and Chinese. The Generic Book G Carlson, FJ Pelletier 398–411. Chicago, IL: Univ. Chicago Press
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Landman F. 2000. Events and Plurality: The Jerusalem Lectures Dordrecht, Neth: Kluwer
  56. Landman F 2011. Count nouns – mass nouns, neat nouns – mess nouns. The Baltic International Yearbook of Cognition, Logic and Communication, Vol. 6 Formal Semantics and Pragmatics: Discourse, Context and Models BH Partee, M Glanzberg, J Skilters Manhattan, KS: New Prairie https://doi.org/10.4148/biyclc.v6i0.1579
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  57. Landman F 2016. Iceberg semantics for count nouns and mass nouns: classifiers, measures and portions. The Baltic International Yearbook of Cognition, Logic and Communication, Vol. 11 Number: Cognitive, Semantic and Crosslinguistic Approaches S Rothstein, J Šķilters Manhattan, KS: New Prairie https://doi.org/10.4148/1944-3676.1107
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  58. Larsson S, Fernández R. 2014. Vagueness and learning: a type-theoretic approach. Proceedings of the Third Joint Conference on Lexical and Computational Semantics (*SEM 2014) J Bos, A Frank, R Navigli 151–59. Stroudsburg, PA: Assoc. Comput. Linguist.
  59. Lassiter D 2011. Vagueness as probabilistic linguistic knowledge. Vagueness in Communication: Revised Selected Papers from the 2009 International Workshop on Vagueness in Communication (VIC 2009) R Nouwen, R van Rooij, U Sauerland, HC Schmitz 127–50. Berlin, Ger: Springer
     [Google Scholar]
  60. Lewis D. 1970. General semantics. Synthese 22:18–67
     [Google Scholar]
  61. Liefke K. 2014. A single-type semantics for natural language. PhD Thesis Tilburg Univ. Tilburg, Neth:.
     [Google Scholar]
  62. Liefke K. 2024. Intensionality and propositionalism. Annu. Rev. Linguist. 10:85–105
     [Google Scholar]
  63. Liefke K, Werning M. 2018. Evidence for single-type semantics? An alternative to e/t-based dual-type semantics. J. Semant. 35:4639–85
     [Google Scholar]
  64. Löb M. 1945. Solution of a problem of Leon Henkin. J. Symb. Logic 20:2115–18
     [Google Scholar]
  65. Löbner S 2015. Functional concepts and frames. Meaning, Frames, and Conceptual Representation T Gamerschlag, D Gerland, R Osswald, W Petersen 15–42. Düsseldorf, Ger: Düsseldorf Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  66. Luo Z 1997. Coercive subtyping in type theory. Proceedings of the 10th International Workshop on Computer Science Logic (CSL '96) D van Dalen, M Bezem 275–96. Berlin/Heidelberg, Ger: Springer
  67. Luo Z. 1999. Coercive subtyping. J. Logic Comput. 9:1105–30
     [Google Scholar]
  68. Luo Z. 2012. Formal semantics in modern type theories with coercive subtyping. Linguist. Philos. 35:6491–513
     [Google Scholar]
  69. Luo Z. 2021. Donkey anaphora: type-theoretic semantics with both strong and weak sums. Proceedings of the ESSLLI 2021 Workshop on Computing Semantics with Types, Frames and Related Structures45–52. Stroudsburg, PA: Assoc. Comput. Linguist.
  70. Luo Z, Soloviev S, Xue T. 2013. Coercive subtyping: theory and implementation. Inform. Comput. 223:18–42
     [Google Scholar]
  71. Martin-Löf P. 1984. Intuitionistic Type Theory Naples, Italy: Bibliopolis
  72. Mery B, Moot R, Retoré C 2019. Solving the individuation and counting puzzle with λ-DRT and MGL. New Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence K Kojima, M Sakamoto, K Mineshima, K Satoh 298–312. Cham, Switz: Springer
     [Google Scholar]
  73. Mönnich U. 1985. Untersuchungen zu einer konstruktiven Semantik fur ein Fragment des Englischen. PhD Thesis Univ. Tübingen Tübingen, Ger:.
     [Google Scholar]
  74. Montague R. 1970. Universal grammar. Theoria 36:373–98
     [Google Scholar]
  75. Montague R. 1973. The proper treatment of quantification in ordinary English. Approaches to Natural Language: Proceedings of the 1970 Stanford Workshop on Grammar and Semantics J Hintikka, J Moravcsik, P Suppes 247–70. Dordrecht, Neth: D. Reidel
  76. Ortega-Andrés M, Vicente A 2019. Polysemy and co-predication. Glossa 4:11
     [Google Scholar]
  77. Parsons T. 1990. Events in the Semantics of English Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
  78. Partee B. 2007. Type theory and natural language: Do we need two basic types? Paper presented at the 100th Meeting of the Seminar: Mathematical Methods Applied to Linguistics Moscow, Russ: Mar. 31
  79. Petersen W 2015. Representation of concepts as frames. Meaning, Frames, and Conceptual Representation T Gamerschlag, D Gerland, R Osswald, W Petersen 43–67. Düsseldorf, Ger: Düsseldorf Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  80. Piwek P, Krahmer E 2000. Presuppositions in context: constructing bridges. Formal Aspects of Context P Bonzon, M Cavalcanti, R Nossu 85–106. Dordrecht, Neth: Springer
     [Google Scholar]
  81. Pollard C, Sag IA. 1994. Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar Stanford, CA: CSLI
  82. Purver M, Gregoromichelaki E, Meyer-Viol W, Cann R 2010. Splitting the `I's and crossing the `you's: context, speech acts and grammar. Proceedings of the 14th Workshop on the Semantics and Pragmatics of Dialogue (SemDial 2010) P Łupkowski, M Purver 43–50. Poznań, Pol.: Pol. Soc. Cogn. Sci.
  83. Pustejovsky J. 1994. Semantic typing and degrees of polymorphism. Current Issues in Mathematical Linguistics C Martin-Vide 221–38. Amsterdam, Neth.: North-Holland
     [Google Scholar]
  84. Pustejovsky J. 1995. The Generative Lexicon Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
  85. Pustejovsky J 2013. Type theory and lexical decomposition. Advances in Generative Lexicon Theory J Pustejovsky, P Bouillon, H Isahara, K Kanzaki, C Lee 9–38. Dordrecht, Neth: Springer
     [Google Scholar]
  86. Ranta A. 1994. Type-Theoretical Grammar Oxford, UK: Clarendon:
  87. Retoré C 2014. The Montagovian generative lexicon ∧Tyn: a type theoretical framework for natural language semantics. Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Types for Proofs and Programs (TYPES 2013) R Matthes, A Schubert 202–29. Wadern, Ger: LIPIcs
  88. Rothstein S. 2010. Counting and the mass/count distinction. J. Semant. 27:3343–97
     [Google Scholar]
  89. Rothstein S. 2017. Semantics for Counting and Measuring Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  90. Seuren P 1973. The comparative. Generative Grammar in Europe F Keifer, N Ruwet 528–64. Dordrecht, Neth: D Reidel
    [Google Scholar]
  91. Sundholm G 1986. Proof theory and meaning. Handbook of Philosophical Logic , Vol. 3 Alternatives to Classical Logic D Gabbay, F Guenthner 471–506. Dordrecht, Neth: Springer
     [Google Scholar]
  92. Sutton PR 2022. Restrictions on copredication: a situation theoretic approach. Proceedings of the 32nd Conference on Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT 32) JR Starr, J Kim, B Öney 335–55. Washington, DC: Linguist. Soc. Am.
  93. Sutton PR, Filip H 2016a. Counting in context: count/mass variation and restrictions on coercion in collective artifact nouns. Proceedings of the 26th Conference on Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT 26) M Moroney, C-R Little, J Collard, D Burgdorf 350–70. Washington, DC: Linguist. Soc. Am.
  94. Sutton PR, Filip H 2016b. Vagueness, overlap, and countability. Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 20 N Bade, P Berezovskaya, A Schöller 730–47. Tübingen, Ger: Univ. Tübingen
  95. Sutton PR, Filip H. 2017. Individuation, reliability, and the mass/count distinction. J. Lang. Model. 5:2303–56
     [Google Scholar]
  96. Sutton PR, Filip H. 2018. Restrictions on subkind coercion in object mass nouns. Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 21 R Truswell, C Cummins, C Heycock, B Rabern, H Rohde 1195–213. Edinburgh, UK: Univ. Edinburgh
  97. Sutton PR, Filip H 2020. Informational object nouns and the mass/count distinction. Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 24, Vol. 2 M Franke, N Kompa, M Liu, JL Mueller, J Schwab 319–35. Osnabrüück/Berlin, Ger.: Osnabrüück Univ./Humboldt Univ. Berlin
  98. van Eijck J, Lappin S 2012. Probabilistic semantics for natural language. Logic and Interactive RAtionality (LIRA) Yearbook 2012, Vol. 2 Z Christoff, P Galeazzi, N Gierasimszuk, A Marcoci, S Smets 17–35. Amsterdam, Neth: Univ. Amsterdam
     [Google Scholar]
  99. Windhearn M. 2021. Alternatives, exclusivity and underspecification. PhD Thesis Cornell Univ. Ithaca, NY:
     [Google Scholar]
  100. Zobel S 2017. The sensitivity of natural language to the distinction between class nouns and role nouns. Proceedings of the 27th Conference on Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT 27) D Burgdorf, J Collard, S Maspong, B Stefánsdóttir 438–58. Washington, DC: Linguist. Soc. Am.
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-031422-113929
Loading
Types and Type Theories in Natural Language Analysis
Annual Review of Linguistics 10, 107 (2024); https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-031422-113929
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-031422-113929
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-031422-113929
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error