1932

Abstract

Glue Semantics (Glue) is a general framework for semantic composition and the syntax–semantics interface. The framework grew out of an interdisciplinary collaboration at the intersection of formal linguistics, formal logic, and computer science. Glue assumes a separate level of syntax; this can be any syntactic framework in which syntactic structures have heads. Glue uses a fragment of linear logic for semantic composition. General linear logic terms in Glue meaning constructors are instantiated relative to a syntactic parse. The separation of the logic of composition from structural syntax distinguishes Glue from other theories of semantic composition and the syntax–semantics interface. It allows Glue to capture semantic ambiguity, such as quantifier scope ambiguity, without necessarily positing an ambiguity in the syntactic structure. Glue is introduced here in relation to four of its key properties, which are used as organizing themes: resource-sensitive composition, flexible composition, autonomy of syntax, and syntax/semantics non-isomorphism.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-032521-053835
2022-01-14
2024-06-23
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/linguistics/8/1/annurev-linguistics-032521-053835.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-032521-053835&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Andrews AD 2007. Projections and Glue for clause union complex predicates. Proceedings of the LFG07 Conference M Butt, TH King 44–65 Stanford, CA: CSLI
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Andrews AD. 2008. The role of pred in LFG+Glue. See Butt & King 2008 46–67
  3. Andrews AD. 2010. Propositional Glue and the architecture of LFG. Linguist. Philos. 33:3141–70
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Andrews AD. 2018. Sets, heads, and spreading in LFG. J. Lang. Model. 6:1131–74
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Arnold D, Sadler L 2010. Pottsian LFG. Proceedings of the LFG10 Conference M Butt, TH King 43–63 Stanford, CA: CSLI
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Arnold D, Sadler L 2011. Resource splitting and reintegration with supplementals. Proceedings of the LFG11 Conference M Butt, TH King 26–46 Stanford, CA: CSLI
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Arnold D, Sadler L 2012. Affected experiencers and mixed semantics in LFG/Glue. See Butt & King 2012 44–63
  8. Asudeh A. 2004. Resumption as resource management PhD Thesis Stanford Univ. Stanford, CA:
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Asudeh A. 2005a. Control and semantic resource sensitivity. J. Linguist. 41:3465–511
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Asudeh A. 2005b. Relational nouns, pronouns, and resumption. Linguist. Philos. 28:4375–446
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Asudeh A 2006. Direct compositionality and the architecture of LFG. Intelligent Linguistic Architectures: Variations on Themes by Ronald M. Kaplan M Butt, M Dalrymple, TH King 363–87 Stanford, CA: CSLI
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Asudeh A. 2007. Some notes on pseudo noun incorporation in Niuean Work. Pap. Carleton Univ. Ottawa, Can:.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Asudeh A. 2011. Towards a unified theory of resumption. Resumptive Pronouns at the Interfaces A Rouveret 121–87 Amsterdam: John Benjamins
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Asudeh A. 2012. The Logic of Pronominal Resumption Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Asudeh A 2021. The unrealized and the unheard. Modular Design of Grammar: Linguistics on the Edge IW Arka, A Asudeh, TH King Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press. In press
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Asudeh A, Crouch R 2002a. Coordination and parallelism in Glue Semantics: integrating discourse cohesion and the element constraint. Proceedings of the LFG02 Conference M Butt, TH King 19–39 Stanford, CA: CSLI
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Asudeh A, Crouch R 2002b. Glue Semantics for HPSG. Proceedings of the 8th International HPSG Conference F van Eynde, L Hellan, D Beermann 1–19 Stanford, CA: CSLI Publ.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Asudeh A, Dalrymple M, Toivonen I. 2008. Constructions with lexical integrity: templates as the lexicon-syntax interface. See Butt & King 2008 68–88
  19. Asudeh A, Dalrymple M, Toivonen I. 2013. Constructions with Lexical Integrity. J. Lang. Model. 1:11–54
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Asudeh A, Giorgolo G. 2012. Flexible composition for optional and derived arguments. See Butt & King 2012 64–84
  21. Asudeh A, Giorgolo G. 2016. Perspectives. Semant. Pragmat. 9:211–57
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Asudeh A, Giorgolo G. 2020. Enriched Meanings: Natural Language Semantics with Category Theory Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Asudeh A, Giorgolo G, Toivonen I. 2014. Meaning and valency. See Butt & King 2014 68–88
  24. Asudeh A, Melchin PB, Siddiqi D. 2021. Constraints all the way down: DM in a representational model of grammar Work. Pap. Carleton Univ. Ottawa, Can:.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Asudeh A, Toivonen I 2007. Copy raising and its consequences for perception reports. Architectures, Rules, and Preferences: Variations on Themes by Joan W. Bresnan A Zaenen, J Simpson, TH King, J Grimshaw, J Maling, C Manning 49–67 Stanford, CA: CSLI
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Asudeh A, Toivonen I. 2012. Copy raising and perception. Nat. Lang. Linguist. Theory 30:2321–80
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Asudeh A, Toivonen I. 2014. With Lexical Integrity. Theor. Linguist. 40:1–2175–86
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Asudeh A, Toivonen I 2015. Lexical-Functional Grammar. The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Analysis B Heine, H Narrog 373–406 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press, 2nd ed..
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Asudeh A, Toivonen I 2017. A modular approach to evidentiality. Proceedings of the LFG17 Conference M Butt, TH King 45–65 Stanford, CA: CSLI
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Bach E. 1976. An extension of classical transformational grammar. Problems of Linguistic Metatheory: Proceedings of the l976 Conference183–224 East Lansing: Michigan State Univ.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Baker B, Horrack K, Nordlinger R, Sadler L 2010. Putting it all together: agreement, incorporation, coordination and external possession in Wubuy (Australia). Proceedings of the LFG10 Conference M Butt, TH King 64–84 Stanford, CA: CSLI
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Baldridge J. 2002. Lexically specified derivational control in Combinatory Categorial Grammar PhD Thesis Univ. Edinburgh Edinburgh, UK:
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Barker C, Jacobson P, 2007. Direct Compositionality Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Barwise J, Cooper R. 1981. Generalized quantifiers and natural language. Linguist. Philos. 4:2159–219
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Bary C, Haug DTT 2011. Temporal anaphora across and inside sentences: the function of participles. Semant. Pragmat. 4:81–56
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Belyaev O. 2020. Verbal case” in Ashti Dargwa. See Butt & Toivonen 2020 26–46
  37. Belyaev O, Haug DTT. 2014. Pronominal coreference in Ossetic correlatives and the syntax-semantics interface. See Butt & King 2014 89–109
  38. Börjars K. 2020. Generalized quantifiers and natural language. Annu. Rev. Linguist. 6:155–72
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Bresnan J, Asudeh A, Toivonen I, Wechsler S. 2016. Lexical-Functional Syntax Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2nd ed..
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Butt M, King TH 2008. Proceedings of the LFG08 Conference Stanford, CA: CSLI
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Butt M, King TH 2012. Proceedings of the LFG12 Conference Stanford, CA: CSLI
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Butt M, King TH 2014. Proceedings of the LFG14 Conference Stanford, CA: CSLI
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Butt M, Toivonen I 2020. Proceedings of the LFG20 Conference Stanford, CA: CSLI
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Camilleri M, ElSadek S, Sadler L 2014. Perceptual reports in (dialects of) Arabic. See Butt & King 2014 179–99
  45. Camilleri M, Sadler L 2011. Restrictive relative clauses in Maltese. Proceedings of the LFG11 Conference M Butt, TH King 110–30 Stanford, CA: CSLI
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Carpenter B. 1997. Type-Logical Semantics Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Chomsky N. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding Dordrecht, Neth: Foris
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Chomsky N. 1982. Some Concepts and Consequences of the Theory of Government and Binding Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Chomsky N. 1986. Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origin, and Use New York: Praeger
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Chomsky N. 1995. The Minimalist Program Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Crouch R, Dalrymple M, Kaplan R, King T, Maxwell J, Newman P. 2011. XLE documentation Doc. Palo Alto Res. Cent. Palo Alto, CA:
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Crouch R, Frank A, van Genabith J 2001. Glue, underspecification and translation. Computing Meaning 2 H Bunt, R Muskens, E Thijsse 165–84 Dordrecht. Neth.: Kluwer
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Crouch R, van Genabith J. 1999. Context change, underspecification, and the structure of Glue language derivations. See Dalrymple 1999 117–89
  54. Curry HB, Feys R. 1958. Combinatory Logic 1 Amsterdam: North-Holland
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Dalrymple M 1999. Semantics and Syntax in Lexical Functional Grammar: The Resource Logic Approach Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Dalrymple M. 2001. Lexical Functional Grammar San Diego, CA: Academic
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Dalrymple M, Gupta V, Lamping J, Saraswat V 1997a. Relating resource-based semantics to categorial semantics. Proceedings of the Fifth Meeting on Mathematics of Language (MOL5) 97-0222–29 Kaiserslauten, Ger: DFKI
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Dalrymple M, Gupta V, Lamping J, Saraswat V 1999a. Relating resource-based semantics to categorial semantics. See Dalrymple 1999 261–80Revised version of Dalrymple et al. 1997a.
  59. Dalrymple M, Kaplan RM, Maxwell JT III, Zaenen A 1995a. Formal Issues in Lexical-Functional Grammar Stanford, CA: CSLI
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Dalrymple M, Lamping J, Pereira F, Saraswat V 1995b. Linear logic for meaning assembly. Proceedings of Computational Logic for Natural Language Processing S Manandhar, GP Lopes, W Nutt Edinburgh, UK: CLNLP/NLULP
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Dalrymple M, Lamping J, Pereira F, Saraswat V. 1997b. Quantification, anaphora, and intensionality. J. Logic Lang. Inform. 6:3219–73
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Dalrymple M, Lamping J, Pereira F, Saraswat V. 1999b. Overview and introduction. See Dalrymple 1999 1–38
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Dalrymple M, Lamping J, Pereira F, Saraswat V 1999c. Quantification, anaphora, and intensionality. See Dalrymple 1999 39–89Revised version of Dalrymple et al. 1997b.
  64. Dalrymple M, Lamping J, Saraswat V 1993. LFG semantics via constraints. Proceedings of the Sixth Conference of the European ACL S Krauwer, M Moortgat, L des Tombe 97–105 Utrecht, Neth.: Assoc. Comput. Linguist.
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Dalrymple M, Lowe JJ, Mycock L. 2019. The Oxford Reference Guide to Lexical Functional Grammar Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Dalrymple M, Nikolaeva I. 2011. Objects and Information Structure Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Dalrymple M, Patejuk A, Zymla MM 2020. XLE+Glue—a new tool for integrating semantic analysis in XLE. See Butt & Toivonen 2020 89–108
  68. Emms M. 1990. Polymorphic quantifiers. Studies in Categorial Grammar65–111 Edinburgh, UK: Cent. Cogn. Sci.
    [Google Scholar]
  69. Emms M. 1992. Logical ambiguity PhD Thesis Univ. Edinburgh Edinburgh, UK:
    [Google Scholar]
  70. Fenstad JE, Halvorsen PK, Langhold T, van Benthem J. 1987. Situations, Language and Logic Dordrecht, Neth.: Reidel
    [Google Scholar]
  71. Findlay JY. 2014. The prepositional passive: a Lexical Functional account. Master's Thesis, Univ. Oxford Oxford, UK:
    [Google Scholar]
  72. Findlay JY. 2016. Mapping theory without argument structure. J. Lang. Model. 4:2293–338
    [Google Scholar]
  73. Findlay JY. 2019. Multiword expressions and the lexicon PhD Thesis Univ. Oxford Oxford, UK:
    [Google Scholar]
  74. Findlay JY. 2020. Lexical Mapping Theory and the anatomy of a lexical entry. See Butt & Toivonen 2020 127–47
  75. Findlay JY 2021. Meaning in LFG. Modular Design of Grammar: Linguistics on the Edge IW Arka, A Asudeh, TH King Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press. In press
    [Google Scholar]
  76. Fox D. 2000. Economy and Semantic Interpretation Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
    [Google Scholar]
  77. Frank A, van Genabith J 2001. LL-based semantics construction for LTAG—and what it teaches us about the relation between LFG and LTAG. Proceedings of the LFG01 Conference M Butt, TH King 104–26 Stanford, CA: CSLI Publ.
    [Google Scholar]
  78. Fry J. 1999. Resource-logical event semantics for LFG. Paper presented at the International Lexical-Functional Grammar Conference '99 Univ. Manchester Manchester, UK:
    [Google Scholar]
  79. Giorgolo G, Asudeh A 2012a. M,η,⋆〉 monads for conventional implicatures. Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 16 1 AA Guevara, A Chernilovskaya, R Nouwen 265–78 Cambridge, MA: MIT Work. Pap. Linguist.
    [Google Scholar]
  80. Giorgolo G, Asudeh A. 2012b. Missing resources in a resource-sensitive semantics. See Butt & King 2012 219–39
  81. Giorgolo G, Asudeh A. 2014a. Monads as a solution for generalized opacity. Proceedings of the EACL 2014 Workshop on Type Theory and Natural Language Semantics (TTNLS)19–27 Stroudsburg, PA: Assoc. Comput. Linguist.
    [Google Scholar]
  82. Giorgolo G, Asudeh A. 2014b. One semiring to rule them all. Proceedings of the 36th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society116–21 Québec City, Can.: Cogn. Sci. Soc.
    [Google Scholar]
  83. Girard JY. 1987. Linear logic. Theor. Comput. Sci. 50:11–102
    [Google Scholar]
  84. Gotham M. 2018. Making Logical Form type-logical: Glue semantics for Minimalist syntax. Linguist. Philos. 41:5511–56
    [Google Scholar]
  85. Gotham M, Haug DTT 2018. Glue Semantics for Universal Dependencies. Proceedings of the LFG18 Conference M Butt, TH King 208–26 Stanford, CA: CSLI
    [Google Scholar]
  86. Grønn A, von Stechow A 2016. Tense. The Cambridge Handbook of Formal Semantics M Aloni, P Dekker 313–41 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  87. Halle M, Marantz A 1993. Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. The View from Building 20 K Hale, SJ Keyser 111–76 Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
    [Google Scholar]
  88. Halvorsen PK. 1983. Semantics for Lexical-Functional Grammar. Linguist. Inq. 14:4567–615
    [Google Scholar]
  89. Halvorsen PK, Kaplan RM. 1988. Projections and semantic description in Lexical-Functional Grammar. Proceedings of the International Conference on Fifth Generation Computer Systems1116–22 Tokyo: Inst. New Gener. Syst.
    [Google Scholar]
  90. Haug DTT. 2008. Tense and aspect for Glue Semantics: the case of participial XADJ's. See Butt & King 2008 291–311
  91. Haug DTT 2009. Med’—the syntax and semantics of concomitance in Norwegian. Proceedings of the LFG09 Conference M Butt, TH King 338–56 Stanford, CA: CSLI Publ.
    [Google Scholar]
  92. Haug DTT 2013. Partial control and anaphoric control in LFG. Proceedings of the LFG13 Conference M Butt, TH King 274–94 Stanford, CA: CSLI
    [Google Scholar]
  93. Haug DTT. 2014. Partial dynamic semantics for anaphora: compositionality without syntactic coindexation. J. Semant. 31:4457–511
    [Google Scholar]
  94. Heim I, Kratzer A. 1998. Semantics in Generative Grammar Oxford, UK: Blackwell
    [Google Scholar]
  95. Hendriks H. 1993. Studied flexibility: categories and types in syntax and semantics PhD Thesis Univ. Amsterdam, Amsterdam:
    [Google Scholar]
  96. Howard WA 1980. The formulae-as-types notion of construction. To H.B. Curry: Essays on Combinatory Logic, Lambda Calculus and Formalism JP Seldin, JR Hindley 479–90 London: Academic
    [Google Scholar]
  97. Jacobson P. 2014. Compositional Semantics: An Introduction to the Syntax/Semantics Interface Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  98. Kaplan RM 1987. Three seductions of computational psycholinguistics. Linguistic Theory and Computer Applications P Whitelock, MM Wood, HL Somers, R Johnson, P Bennett 149–81 London: Academic
    [Google Scholar]
  99. Kaplan RM 1989. The formal architecture of Lexical-Functional Grammar. J. Inform. Sci. Eng. 5:305–22
    [Google Scholar]
  100. Kaplan RM 1995. The formal architecture of Lexical-Functional Grammar. Formal Issues in Lexical-Functional Grammar M Dalrymple, RM Kaplan, JT Maxwell III, A Zaenen 7–27 Stanford, CA: CSLIRevised version of Kaplan 1989.
    [Google Scholar]
  101. Kaplan RM, Bresnan J 1982. Lexical-Functional Grammar: a formal system for grammatical representation. The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations J Bresnan 173–281 Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
    [Google Scholar]
  102. Keenan EL, Faltz LM 1985. Boolean Semantics for Natural Language Dordrecht, Neth.: Reidel
    [Google Scholar]
  103. Kehler A, Dalrymple M, Lamping J, Saraswat V 1995. The semantics of resource-sharing in Lexical-Functional Grammar. EACL '95: Proceedings of the Seventh Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics31–38 San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann
    [Google Scholar]
  104. Kehler A, Dalrymple M, Lamping J, Saraswat V 1999. Resource sharing in Glue language semantics. See Dalrymple 1999 191–208Revised version of Kehler et al. 1995.
    [Google Scholar]
  105. Kennedy C. 1997. Antecedent contained deletion and the syntax of quantification. Linguist. Inq. 28:662–88
    [Google Scholar]
  106. Klein E, Sag IA. 1985. Type-driven translation. Linguist. Philos. 8:2163–201
    [Google Scholar]
  107. Kokkonidis M. 2008. First-order Glue. J. Logic Lang. Inform. 17:143–68
    [Google Scholar]
  108. Kratzer A 1995. Stage-level and individual-level predicates. The Generic Book GN Carlson, FJ Pelletier 125–75 Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
    [Google Scholar]
  109. Kuhn J. 2001. Resource sensitivity in the syntax-semantics interface and the German split NP construction. Constraint-Based Approaches to Germanic Syntax WD Meurers, T Kiss Stanford, CA: CSLI
    [Google Scholar]
  110. Lambek J. 1958. The mathematics of sentence structure. Am. Math. Mon. 65:3154–70
    [Google Scholar]
  111. Lev I 2007. Packed computation of exact meaning representations PhD Thesis Stanford Univ. Stanford, CA:
    [Google Scholar]
  112. Link G 1983. The logical analysis of plurals and mass terms: a lattice-theoretical approach. Meaning, Use, and Interpretation of Language R Bäuerle, C Schwarze, A von Stechow 302–23 Berlin: Walter de Gruyter
    [Google Scholar]
  113. Lovestrand J. 2020. F-structure and s-structure of Urdu complex predicates. See Butt & Toivonen 2020 232–49
  114. Lowe JJ. 2014. Glue meanings and semantic structures. See Butt & King 2014 387–407
  115. Lowe JJ. 2015a. Complex predicates: an LFG+Glue analysis. J. Lang. Model. 3:2413–62
    [Google Scholar]
  116. Lowe JJ. 2015b. Participles in Rigvedic Sanskrit: The Syntax and Semantics of Adjectival Verb Forms Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  117. Lowe JJ. 2019. Argument alternations in complex predicates: an LFG+Glue perspective. Linguist. Issues Lang. Technol. 17:21–16
    [Google Scholar]
  118. Lowe JJ, Birahimani AH 2019. The argument structure of Siraiki causatives. Proceedings of the LFG19 Conference M Butt, TH King, I Toivonen 191–211 Stanford, CA: CSLI Publ.
    [Google Scholar]
  119. May R. 1977. The grammar of quantification PhD Thesis Mass. Inst. Technol. Cambridge:
    [Google Scholar]
  120. May R. 1985. Logical Form: Its Structure and Derivation Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
    [Google Scholar]
  121. Melchin PB, Asudeh A, Siddiqi D 2020. Ojibwe agreement in Lexical-Realizational Functional Grammar. See Butt & Toivonen 2020 268–88
  122. Meßmer M, Zymla MM 2018. The Glue Semantics workbench: a modular toolkit for exploring linear logic and Glue Semantics. Proceedings of the LFG18 Conference M Butt, TH King 268–82 Stanford, CA: CSLI
    [Google Scholar]
  123. Montague R 1973. The proper treatment of quantification in ordinary English. Approaches to Language J Hintikka, J Moravcsik, P Suppes 221–42 Dordrecht, Neth: Reidel
    [Google Scholar]
  124. Moortgat M 1997. Categorial type logics. Handbook of Logic and Language J van Benthem, A ter Meulen 93–177 Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1st ed..
    [Google Scholar]
  125. Morrill GV. 1994. Type Logical Grammar: Categorial Logic Signs Dordrecht, Neth: Kluwer
    [Google Scholar]
  126. Morrill GV. 2011. Categorial Grammar: Logical Syntax, Semantics, and Processing Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  127. Morrison A. 2017. Adjectival focus as a granularity problem for LFG–Glue Work. Pap. Univ. Oxford Oxford, UK:
    [Google Scholar]
  128. Muskens R. 1996. Combining Montague Semantics and Discourse Representation Theory. Linguist. Philos. 19:2143–86
    [Google Scholar]
  129. Mycock L. 2006. The typology of constituent questions: a Lexical-Functional Grammar analysis of `wh'-questions PhD Thesis Univ. Manchester Manchester, UK:
    [Google Scholar]
  130. Partee BH, Rooth M 1983. Generalized conjunction and type ambiguity. Meaning, Use, and Interpretation of Language R Bäuerle, C Schwarze, A von Stechow 361–83 Berlin: Walter de Gruyter
    [Google Scholar]
  131. Potts C. 2005. The Logic of Conventional Implicatures Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  132. Prawitz D. 1965. Natural Deduction: A Proof-Theoretical Study Stockholm, Swed: Almquist & Wiksell
    [Google Scholar]
  133. Przepiórkowski A 2014a. Distance distributivity in Polish: towards a Glue Semantics approach. Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics 10 C Piñon 107–24 Paris: CSSP
    [Google Scholar]
  134. Przepiórkowski A. 2014b. Locality constraints in distance distributivity: a propositional Glue approach. See Butt & King 2014 402–502
  135. Przepiórkowski A 2015. A weakly compositional analysis of distance distributivity in Polish. Annual Workshop on Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics: The First Berkeley Meeting M Szajbel-Keck, R Burns, D Kavitskaya 262–81 Ann Arbor: Mich. Slav. Publ.
    [Google Scholar]
  136. Przepiórkowski A 2017. Hierarchical lexicon and the argument/adjunct distinction. Proceedings of the LFG17 Conference M Butt, TH King 348–67 Stanford, CA: CSLI
    [Google Scholar]
  137. Restall G. 2000. An Introduction to Substructural Logics London: Routledge:
    [Google Scholar]
  138. Snijders L. 2015. The nature of configurationality in LFG PhD Thesis Univ. Oxford Oxford, UK:
    [Google Scholar]
  139. Steedman M. 1985. Dependency and coördination in the grammar of Dutch and English. Language 61:3523–68
    [Google Scholar]
  140. Steedman M. 1987. Combinatory grammars and parasitic gaps. Nat. Lang. Linguist. Theory 5:3403–40
    [Google Scholar]
  141. Steedman M. 2007. On “the computation. .” In The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Interfaces G Ramchand, C Reiss 575–611 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  142. Steedman M 2014. Categorial grammar. The Routledge Handbook of Syntax A Carnie, Y Sato, D Siddiqi 670–701 New York: Routledge
    [Google Scholar]
  143. Steedman M, Baldridge J. 2011. Combinatory categorial grammar. Non-Transformational Syntax: Formal and Explicit Models of Grammar RD Borsley, K Börjars 181–224 Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell
    [Google Scholar]
  144. van Benthem J. 1991. Language in Action: Categories, Lambdas, and Dynamic Logic Amsterdam: North-Holland
    [Google Scholar]
  145. van Genabith J, Crouch R. 1999. Dynamic and underspecified semantics for LFG. See Dalrymple 1999 209–60
  146. Wood MM. 1993. Categorial Grammars London: Routledge
    [Google Scholar]
  147. Zymla MM. 2021a. Abstract syntax annotator. Project Univ. Konstanz Konstanz, Ger: http://github.com/Mmaz1988/abstract-syntax-annotator-web
    [Google Scholar]
  148. Zymla MM. 2021b. Glue Semantics Workbench, v.2. Project Univ. Konstanz Konstanz: Ger. http://github.com/Mmaz1988/GlueSemWorkbench_v2
    [Google Scholar]
  149. Zymla MM. 2021c. Xle interface for Glue Semantics Workbench. Project, Univ. Konstanz Konstanz, Ger: http://github.com/Mmaz1988/xle-glueworkbench-interface
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-032521-053835
Loading
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-032521-053835
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article
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