Richard T. Oehrle – författare

Geert-Jan Kruijff & Richard T. Oehrle A categorial grammar is both a grammar and a type inference system. As a result of this duality, the categorial framework offers a natural setting in which to study questions of grammatical composition, both empirically and abstractly. There are affinities in this perspective, of course, to basic questions in formal language theory. But the fact that categorial grammars are type in­ ference systems makes possible intrinsic connections among syntactic types, syntactic type inference, semantic types, and semantic type inference, a con­ nection less apparent in the standard constructions of formal language theory. Fixing a system of grammatical type inference T, we may explore what gram­ matical phenomena are compatible with T-and equally, what grammatical phenomena are not. Equally, fixing a class of grammatical phenomena g, we may seek to ascertain what systems of type inference characterize g. This dual perspective is a strong current in the categorial literature, going back to the classical papers of Ajdukiewicz, Bar-Hillel, Curry, and Lambek.

Geert-Jan Kruijff & Richard T. Oehrle A categorial grammar is both a grammar and a type inference system. As a result of this duality, the categorial framework offers a natural setting in which to study questions of grammatical composition, both empirically and abstractly. There are affinities in this perspective, of course, to basic questions in formal language theory. But the fact that categorial grammars are type in­ ference systems makes possible intrinsic connections among syntactic types, syntactic type inference, semantic types, and semantic type inference, a con­ nection less apparent in the standard constructions of formal language theory. Fixing a system of grammatical type inference T, we may explore what gram­ matical phenomena are compatible with T-and equally, what grammatical phenomena are not. Equally, fixing a class of grammatical phenomena g, we may seek to ascertain what systems of type inference characterize g. This dual perspective is a strong current in the categorial literature, going back to the classical papers of Ajdukiewicz, Bar-Hillel, Curry, and Lambek.

For the most part, the papers collected in this volume stern from presentations given at a conference held in Tucson over the weekend of May 31 through June 2, 1985. We wish to record our gratitude to the participants in that conference, as well as to the National Science Foundation (Grant No. BNS-8418916) and the University of Arizona SBS Research Institute for their financial support. The advice we received from Susan Steele on organizational matters proved invaluable and had many felicitous consequences for the success of the con- ference. We also would like to thank the staff of the Departments of Linguistics of the University of Arizona and the University of Massachusetts at Amherst for their help, as weIl as a number of individuals, including Lin Hall, Kathy Todd, and Jiazhen Hu, Sandra Fulmer, Maria Sandoval, Natsuko Tsujimura, Stuart Davis, Mark Lewis, Robin Schafer, Shi Zhang, Olivia Oehrle-Steele, and Paul Saka. Finally, we would like to express our gratitude to Martin Scrivener, our editor, for his patience and his encouragement.Vll INTRODUCTION The term 'categorial grammar' was introduced by Bar-Rillel (1964, page 99) as a handy way of grouping together some of his own earlier work (1953) and the work of the Polish logicians and philosophers Lesniewski (1929) and Ajdukiewicz (1935), in contrast to approaches to linguistic analysis based on phrase structure grammars.

For the most part, the papers collected in this volume stern from presentations given at a conference held in Tucson over the weekend of May 31 through June 2, 1985. We wish to record our gratitude to the participants in that conference, as well as to the National Science Foundation (Grant No. BNS-8418916) and the University of Arizona SBS Research Institute for their financial support. The advice we received from Susan Steele on organizational matters proved invaluable and had many felicitous consequences for the success of the con- ference. We also would like to thank the staff of the Departments of Linguistics of the University of Arizona and the University of Massachusetts at Amherst for their help, as weIl as a number of individuals, including Lin Hall, Kathy Todd, and Jiazhen Hu, Sandra Fulmer, Maria Sandoval, Natsuko Tsujimura, Stuart Davis, Mark Lewis, Robin Schafer, Shi Zhang, Olivia Oehrle-Steele, and Paul Saka. Finally, we would like to express our gratitude to Martin Scrivener, our editor, for his patience and his encouragement.Vll INTRODUCTION The term 'categorial grammar' was introduced by Bar-Rillel (1964, page 99) as a handy way of grouping together some of his own earlier work (1953) and the work of the Polish logicians and philosophers Lesniewski (1929) and Ajdukiewicz (1935), in contrast to approaches to linguistic analysis based on phrase structure grammars.

Geert-Jan Kruijff & Richard T. Oehrle A categorial grammar is both a grammar and a type inference system. As a result of this duality, the categorial framework offers a natural setting in which to study questions of grammatical composition, both empirically and abstractly. There are affinities in this perspective, of course, to basic questions in formal language theory. But the fact that categorial grammars are type in­ ference systems makes possible intrinsic connections among syntactic types, syntactic type inference, semantic types, and semantic type inference, a con­ nection less apparent in the standard constructions of formal language theory. Fixing a system of grammatical type inference T, we may explore what gram­ matical phenomena are compatible with T-and equally, what grammatical phenomena are not. Equally, fixing a class of grammatical phenomena g, we may seek to ascertain what systems of type inference characterize g. This dual perspective is a strong current in the categorial literature, going back to the classical papers of Ajdukiewicz, Bar-Hillel, Curry, and Lambek.