English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

The main asset of categorial grammar has traditionally been the close association between syntactic description on the one hand and a transparent and well-founded semantics on the other. Consequently, categorial grammar has primarily been favored by semantically oriented theorists and has arguably played an important role in the development of formal semantics for natural languages (see, for example, Lewis [1970] and Montague [1973]). From the point of view of grammatical theory, however, frameworks based on categorial grammar have usually been problematic either by being too restricted in their expressive power or by not being restricted enough. Thus, classical categorial grammar, where the only permissible operation is functional application, is equivalent in expressive power to context-free phrase structure grammar and is therefore considered by most researchers as too restrictive. By contrast, the various extensions sometimes grouped under the heading of "flexible categorial grammar," which allow operations such as functional composition and type raising, have been criticized for being too permissive. In the most extreme case, these extensions may result in permutation-completeness, meaning that any grammar will generate the permutation closure of the context-free language defined by the lexicon (van Benthem 1986; Moortgat 1989). But even if this can be avoided, it is normally the case in these frameworks that one and the same string has multiple derivations resulting in the same semantic representation, a phenomenon which is often referred to as "spurious ambiguity." Mark Steedman, in his book The Syntactic Process, presents the framework of combinatory categorial grammar (CCG), which attempts to steer a steady course between the Scylla of context-freeness and the Charybdis of permutation-completeness, using a suitably constrained set of operators. Moreover, Steedman argues that the alternative derivations, far from being spurious, are needed to capture aspects of linguistic structure that have traditionally been neglected in grammatical theory, notably coordination, parentheticals and, last but not least, intonation structure. This leads to a new conception of syntactic structure, which is no longer seen as an independent level of representation but rather as a trace of the process by which an interpretation is derived. The claim is that different derivations of the same predicate-argument structure actually correspond to different ways of structuring a content, something that is often reflected in the intonation structure of utterances. Steedman therefore proposes the term information structure for this notion of syntactic structure, which is claimed to unify the separate notions of surface structure and intonation structure postulated in other theories of grammar (see, for example, Selkirk [1984]). Another advantage of this unorthodox notion of constituent structure, according to the author, is that it directly supports incremental processing in such a way that every processing step cor-

computational linguistics - association for computational linguistics

The Syntactic Process Mark Steedman (University of Edinburgh) Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press (Language, speech, and communication series), 2000, xiv+330 pp; hardbound, ISBN 0-262-19420-1, $35.00