0 montague grammar eecs 595 - fall 2004 amy kao. 1 montague grammar maps syntactic structure with...
TRANSCRIPT
1
Montague Grammar
EECS 595 - Fall 2004
Amy Kao
2
Montague Grammar
• Maps syntactic structure with semantic structure• Uses formal language to describe natural language
(1970) Universal Grammar
Theory of formal syntax and semantics applied to formal & natural languages
(1970) English as a formal language
Theory of English as a form of formal language
(1973) The Proper Treatment of Quantification in Ordinary English
Application of Universal Grammar theories of a fragment of English
3
Relevant Contributors• Richard Montague (1930-1971)
• Student of Tarski
• Created Philosophies and Theories of Montague Grammar
• Taught at UCLA
• Barbara Hall Partee
• Student of Chomsky
• Wrote interpretations that made Montague’s work more understandable
• Teaches at U. Mass Amherst
4
Syntactic CategoriesCategory Abbreviation PTQ Name Nearest linguistic equivalentt (primitive) Truth-value expression; or
declarative sentenceSentence
e (primitive) Entity expression; orindividual expression
(noun phrase)
t/e IV Intransitive verb phrase transitive verb, transitive verb andits object, or other verb phrases
t/IV T Term Noun phraseIV/T TV Transitive verb phrase Transitive verbIV/IV IAV IV-modifying adverb VP-adverb and prepositional
phrases containing in and about.t//e CN Common noun phrase Noun or NOMt/t None Sentence-modifying adverb Sentence-modifying adverbIAV/T None IAV-making preposition Locative, etc., prepositionIV/t None Sentence-taking verb
phraseV which takes that-COMP
IV/IV None IV-taking verb phrase V which takes infinitive COMP
5
Category Definitions/Generation
• Categories are of form: X/Y – semantics of Y into the truth value of X
• Abbreviations for first 5 categories– IV = t/e– T = t/IV– TV = IV/T– IAV = IV/IV– CN = t//e
• Infinite number of possible categories– May use as many slashes as needed for new categories
6
Example Expressions Category Basic Expression
1 BIV {run, walk, talk, rise, change}2 BT {John, Mary, Bill, ninety, he0, he1, he2, …}3 BTV {find lose, eat, love, date, be, seek, conceive}4 BIAV {rapidly, slowly, voluntarily, allegedly}5 BCN {man, woman, park, fish, pen, unicorn, price, temperature}6 Bt/t {necessarily}7 BIAV /T {in, about}8 BIV/t {believe that, assert that}9 BIV/IV {try to , wish to}
Partee 1973
7
Example Rule F3 For BTV
F3(, ) = If first word of is a TV: if is not a variable
himi if is hei
If is 1 2 where 1 is a TV/T:
1 2 if is not a variable
himi 2 if is hei
F3(shave, a fish) = shave a fish
F3(seek, he1) = seek him1
F3(read a large book, Mary) = read Mary a large book
8
Syntactic Rules
If X/Y and Y then Fi(,) X
Mary loves him, I, F1(love him, Mary)
love him, IV, F3(love, he) Mary, T
he, Tlove, TV
9
Extensions and Intensions
Extension Category Appropriate Intension FunctionTruth-value of a sentence From indices to truth-values
Thing named by a name From indices to things
Set of objects a common noun or intransitive verbphrase applies to
From indices to sets
Extension: Semantic interpretation
Intension: Function generating an extension
Classmate of John = Graduate student at U MichFormer [Classmate of John] ≠ Former [Graduate student at U Mich]
Extension Problem
10
Intensional Logic (IL)• IL = Intensions and Types
• Syntactic Category Rule = Semantic Rule = Type
• ^X = intension of X– Example: if J = John, ^J = function returning individual named
John
• If X/Y and Y and , translates into ’’, then Fi(,) translates into ’(^’).
• Semantic Primitive t = truth values
• Semantic type is function of model view # Rule Semantic Rule Semantic Set1 t Dt is {0,1}. all truth-values2 e De is A. all entities3 If a and b are types, <a, b> is a type D<a,b> is Db
Da all functions from Da to Db for Da
4 If a is a type, <s, a> is a type D<s,a> is Sa = SaWxT all functions from world-time pairs
to Da
11
Truth DefinitionsConcept Truth Definition
Base X satisfies F(no conditions needed)
Recursive X satisfies “F and G”iff X satisfies F and X satisfies G
Consequence X is a consequence of sentences in class Kiff X is true in every model where every sentence in K is true
Equivalence X and Y are logically equivalentif X is a consequence of Y and Y is a consequence of X
Truth X is logically trueif for all models, X is true
Contradiction Class K is contradictoryif no model exists where all sentences in K are true
12
Model Theoretic Semantics
• Semantics based on truth conditions– Tarski’s Model Theory (1954)
• IL is based on truth Conditions • 3 Levels of Symbols
– Logical Constants: =, , etc– Variables: As in traditional math– Non-logical Constants: , , relation symbols, function
symbols, and constant individual symbols
13
General Quantification & Compositionality
• Compositionality: phrase’s meaning derived from meaning of constituents & syntactic structure
• General Quantification: allows for syntax and semantic structure to be equivalent
Sentence First Order Logic General QuantificationJohn talks Talks(j) John’ (^talk’)Every student talks ∀x [Studen(t )x -> Talks( )x ] Every man’ (^ talk’)
14
Controversies• Formal Logic
– Opposition: differing views of what semantics is• Chomskyan: semantics is branch of psychology• Semantists: semantics different from knowledge of semantics
– Defense: Montague’s “English as a Formal Language”– Formal Semantics now mainstream
• Model Theory– Opposition: Prefer more concrete expressions– Defense: Understands sentences in terms of human mental models
• Truth Conditions– Opposition: Brings in too many irrelevant factors– Defense: Humans judge sentences based on context
15
Developments Influenced by Montague Grammar
• Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar (HPSG)– Influenced by syntactic categories
• File Change Semantics(FCS)• Discourse Representation Semantics (DRS)• Situation Semantics• Extended Categorical Grammar• Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar (GPSG)• Lexical Semantics