Lambek

Joachim Lambek: The Mathematics of Sentence Structure 03/09/2007 02:16 PM
The mathematics of sentence structure*

JOACHIM LAMBEK
The definitions [of the parts of speech] are very far from having attained the degree of exactitude found in
Euclidean geometry.
Otto Jespersen (1924).
Contents
1. Introduction
2. Syntactic types
3. Type list for a fragment of English
4. Formal systems
5. Type computations in English
6. Pronouns
7. Syntactic calculus
8. Decision procedure
9. Proof of Gentzen's theorem
10. Algebraic remarks
11. NOTES
12. REFERENCES
1. Introduction
The aim of this paper is to obtain an effective rule (or algorithm) for distinguishing sentences from
nonsentences, which works not only for the formal languages of interest to the mathematical logician, but
also for natural languages such as English, or at least for fragments of such languages. An attempt to
formulate such an algorithm is implicit in the work of Ajdukiewicz (1935) 1. His method, later elaborated by
Bar-Hillel (1953), depends on a kind of arithmetization of the so-called parts of speech, here called
syntactic types2.
The present paper begins with a new exposition of the theory of syntactic types. It is addressed to
mathematicians with at most an amateur interest in linguistics. The choice of sample languages is therefore
restricted to English and mathematical logic. For the same reason, technical terms have been borrowed from
the field of high school grammar. Only a fragmentary treatment of English grammar is presented here. This
should not be taken too seriously, but is meant to provide familiar illustrations for our general methods. The
reader should not be surprised if he discovers considerable leakage across the line dividing sentences from
nonsentences. It is only fair to warn him that some authorities think that such difficulties are inherent in the
present methods 3. We take consolation in the words of Sapir: `Àll grammars leak.''
http://wwwhomes.uni-bielefeld.de/gjaeger/lehre/cg_ss00/lambek/lambek58.html Page 1 of 27
The second part of this paper is concerned with a development of the technique of Ajdukiewicz and Bar-
Hillel in a mathematical direction. We introduce a calculus of types, which is related to the well-known
calculus of residuals4. The decision problem for this system is solved affirmatively, following a procedure
first proposed by Gentzen for the intuitionistic propositional calculus5.
The methods described here may be applied in several fields. For the teaching of English they provide a
rigorous version of the traditional activity known as diagramming and parsing. For introductory logic
courses they offer an effective definition of well-formed formulas. For the mechanical translation of
languages (Locke and Booth 1955), they may help with the syntactic analysis of the input material and
indicate how to arrange the output into grammatical sentences of the target language. For the construction of
an auxiliary language, they tell how to achieve a completely regular syntax; this is of special importance
when the auxiliary is to act as an intermediate language in mechanical translation.
2. Syntactic types
While linguists are primarily interested in speech rather than in written texts, we shall here confine attention
to the latter, if only to escape the difficult task of breaking up continuous discourse into discrete words. By a
word we shall understand a word-form: Such forms as `work', `works', `worked' and `working' are different
words; but the word `work' occurs twice in `we work best when we like our work', although it functions as a
verb in the first place and as a noun in the second. To describe the function of a word or expression we
ascribe to it a certain syntactic type. This concept will now be defined; it corresponds approximately to the
traditional part of speech.
We begin by introducing two primitive types: s, the type of sentences, and n, the type of names. For the sake
of simplicity, we here restrict sentence to denote complete declarative sentences, ruling out requests and
questions (as well as most replies, which are usually incomplete). By a name we understand primarily a
proper name, such as `John' or `Napoleon'. But we shall also assign type n to all expressions which can
occur in any context in which all proper names can occur. Thus type n is ascribed to the so-called class-
nouns `milk', `rice',. . ., which can occur without article, and to compound expressions such as `poor John',
`fresh milk', . . .6. We do not need to assign type n to the so-called count-nouns `king', `chair', . . ., which
require an article, nor to the pronoun `he', as it cannot replace `John' in `poor John works, or `milk' in `John
likes milk'.
From the primitive types we form compound types, by the recursive definition: If x and y are types, then so
are x/y (read x over y) and y\x (read y under x). The meaning of these two kinds of division will be made
clear by two examples. The adjective `poor' modifies the name `John' from the left, producing the noun-
phrase `poor John'. We assign to it type n/n. The predicate (intransitive verb) `works' transforms the name
`John' from the right into the sentence `John works'. We assign to it type n\s.
In general, an expression of type x/y when followed by an expression of type y produces an expression of
type x, and so does an expression of type y\x when preceded by an expression of type y. We write
symbolically
3. Type list for a fragment of English

We shall illustrate the assignment of types to English words by considering a number of sample sentences.
This remains a sentence if `John' is replaced by any other name, hence `works' has type n\s.
Here `poor John' takes the place of the name in (1) ; in fact `poor John' can occur in any context in which
all names can occur, hence it has type n. Moreover, so has `poor Tom', `poor Jane', . . ., thus `poor' has type
n/n.
The word `here' transforms (l), or any other sentence, into a new sentence, hence it has type s\s. The
question may be raised whether `here, can be attached to a sentence such as (3) itself. While `John works
here here, is open to stylistic objections, we shall consider it grammatically well-formed.
Since `John' can be replaced by any name here, `never works' has type n\s, and so has `never sleeps', . . .;
hence `never' has type (n\s)/(n\s). It may be argued that (3) could also have been grouped `John (works
here)' suggesting the type (n\s)\(n\s) for `here'. It will be shown later that every adverbial expression of type
s\s also has type (n\s)\(n\s).
This indicates that `for Jane' should have the same type as `here' in (3), namely s\s, and, since `Jane' can be
replaced by any other name, `for' has type (s\s)/n.
This illustrates how ànd' can join two arbitrary sentences to form a new sentence; its type is therefore
(s\s)/s.
Here `likes Jane' has the same type as `works' in (1), hence `likes' has type (n\s)/n. Similarly we may write
`John (likes milk)' and even `milk (likes John)'. The latter is a grammatical sentence, though open to
semantic objections. Example (7) raises an important point. Let us group this sentence
Here `John likes' has type s/n, hence `likes' must be given the new type n\(s/n). We would regard the two
types of `likes' in (7) and (7') as in some sense equivalent. Abstracting from this particular situation, we
write symbolically (II)
In practical applications it is often tedious to distinguish between equivalent types, we then write x\y/z for
either side of (II). Further examples of this convention are afforded by the types of `never', `for' and ànd'
[see Table I]. To avoid multiplication of parentheses, we may also abbreviate (x/y)/z as x/y/z, and,
symmetrically, z\(y\x) as z\y\x. However, parentheses must not be omitted in such compounds as x/(y/z),
(z\y)\x, (x/y)\z and z/(y\x). Table I compares the syntactic types of the words discussed above with the
traditional parts of speech and the recent classification of Fries (1952)).
It is fairly clear that in this manner we can build up a type list for a gradually increasing portion of English
vocabulary. This should be subject to possible revision, as more information becomes available. To
distinguish between different forms such as `works' and `work', usually represented by a single dictionary
entry, it is necessary to allow for more than two primitive types. Thus we might assign the type n* to all
noun-plurals, such as `men', `chairs',. . . In contrast to examples (1), (2), (5), (7) we then have
This assignment successfully distinguishes between the forms `work' and `works', `like' and `likes', but it
introduces an undesirable multiplicity of types for `poor', `for', and `likes'. While French distinguishes the
forms `pauvre' and `pauvres', English fails to make a corresponding distinction. A more thorough analysis of
the English verb phrase would compel us to introduce further primitive types for the infinitive and the two
kinds of participles of intransitive verbs. This would lead to some revision of the type list embodied in Table
I. While giving a more adequate treatment of English grammar, such a program would not directly serve the
purpose of the present paper.
4. Formal systems
Suppose we have before us a string of words whose types are given. Then we can compute the type of the
entire expression, provided its so-called phrase structure has been made visible by some device such as
brackets. Consider for example
The indicated computation can also be written in one line:
In the formal languages studied by logicians, this process offers an effective test whether a given grouped
string of symbols is a well-formed formula. For in these languages each word (usually consisting of a single
sign) has just one pre-assigned type, and the use of brackets is obligatory. Let us call expressions with
built-in brackets formulas; then formulas may be defined recursively: Each word is a formula, and if A and
B are formulas, so is (AB). Brackets are usually omitted when this can be done without introducing
ambiguity. Brackets are regularly omitted in accordance with Rule (II). Thus logicians write
rather than
Allowance being made for this convention, the sentence structure of a formalized language is completely
determined by its type list. A number of examples will illustrate this.
1. The propositional calculus, according to one of its formulations, possesses an infinite sequence of
propositional variables of type s, and two signs for negation and implication of types s/s and s\s/s
respectively.
The Polish school of logicians prefer to write all functors on the left of their arguments; it is well-
known (Rosenbloom 1950, IV) that all brackets can then he omitted without introducing ambiguity.
The implication sign in the Polish notation is therefore of type s/s/s.
2. Boolean algebra, rather redundantly formulated, contains an infinite sequence of individual variables,
as well as the signs 0 and l, all of type n, an accent (for complementation) of type n\n, cap and cup of
type n\n/n, equality and inclusion signs of type n\s/n.
3. Quine's mathematical logic (Quine 1951), into which we here introduce a special sign for universal
quantification, contains an infinite sequence of individual variables of type n, and signs for joint
denial, universal quantification and membership of types s\s/s, s/s/n and n\s/n respectively.
4. The calculus of lambda conversion due to Church, with a special sign of type n/n/n for application
(Rosenbloom 1950, p. 111), contains also an infinite sequence of individual variables x i (t = 1,2, . . .)
of type n, together with a parallel sequence lambda x i of type n/n.
5. The syntactic calculus to be introduced in this paper contains a number of symbols for primitive types
of type n, three connectives .,\,/ of type n\n/n, and the sign -> of type n\s/n.
In the interpretation of formal languages (Tarski 1956, XVIII, section 4) one usually assumes that
expressions of type s denote truth values, expressions of type n denote members of a given domain of
individuals, and expressions of type x/y or y\x denote functions from the class of entities denoted by
expressions of type y into the class of entities denoted by expressions of type x. The above discussion of
formal systems is somewhat oversimplified. Thus in Quine's formulation of mathematical logic, no special
symbol is used for universal quantification, and in Church's formulation of the calculus of lambda
conversion the sign for application is not written. The syntactic description of these languages in terms of
types would be more complicated without the special symbols introduced here. In some languages it is
important to distinguish between constants and variables of apparently the same type (see, e.g., Adjukiewicz
(1935)) A description in terms of two primitive types is then no longer adequate.
5. Type computations in English

Suppose we wish to compute the type of a string of English words, which are taken from a given type list.
We cannot proceed quite as directly as in the formal systems discussed above, for two reasons, which we
shall pause to discuss. First, brackets do not usually occur in English texts, unless we regard punctuation as
a half-hearted attempt to indicate grouping. Two ways of inserting brackets into an expression such as `the
daughter of the woman whom he loved' may lead to essentially different syntactic resolutions, which may
be accompanied by different meanings. Secondly, English words usually possess more than one type. We
have seen some examples of this in Section 3; others are easily found: The adverbial expression today has
type s/s or s\s, depending on whether it precedes or follows the sentence modified. The word `sound' may be
a noun, an adjective, or a verb, either transitive or intransitive, depending on the context. Some
``chameleon'' words possess a type which is systematically ambiguous, allowing them to blend into many
different contexts. Thus ònly', of type x/x, can probably modify expressions of any type x, and ànd', of
type x\x/x, will join together expressions of almost any type x to form a compound of the same type. A
mechanical procedure for analyzing English sentences would consist of four steps:
i. Insert brackets in all admissible ways.
ii. To each word assign all types permitted by a given finite type list. (We ignore for the
moment the difficulty arising from words which possess a potentially infinite number of types,
as do the chameleons ànd' and ònly').
iii. For each grouping and type assignment compute the type of the total expression.
iv. Select that method of grouping and that type assignment which yields the desired type s.
A simple example, in which the problem of grouping does not arise, is
Only the assignment
produces a declarative sentence. This may be contrasted with
and
6. Pronouns
So far we have confined attention to the computation Rules (I) and (II). We have had one indication that
other rules may play a role: the discussion of example (4) suggests the rule
To give a heuristic introduction for the consideration of further rules, we enter into a short discussion of
English pronouns.
Since `he' transforms such expressions as `works,, `likes Jane,, . . ., of type n\s into sentences, we assign to it
type s/(n\s). We could of course enlarge the class of names to include pronouns, but then we should be hard
put to explain why `poor he works' and `Jane likes he' are not sentences. At any rate, the assignment of type
s/(n\s) to `he' is valid, irrespective of whether we regard pronouns as names. In fact, by the same argument,
the name `John' also has type s/(n\s). This point will be discussed later.
Jane works for him n n\s s\s/n (s/n)\s The expressions `that's', `Jane likes' and `Jane works for' all have type
s/n, hence we have ascribed type (s/n)\s to `him'. (This assignment is not quite correct:7 The example `Jane
likes poor John' indicates that the expression `Jane likes poor' also has type s/n, yet `Jane likes poor him' is
not a sentence. Moreover the present assignment does not explain why `that's he' is a sentence in the speech
of some people. We shall overlook these defects here.) We observe that the difference in form between `he'
and `him' is reflected by a difference in type, indicating that the former operates from the left, while the
latter operates from the right. Sapir (1949), vii) has called these two forms the pre-verbal and >post-verbal
case of the pronoun respectively. A difficulty arises when we try to show the sentencehood of
for
cannot be simplified any further by the Rules (I) and (II). We introduce two new rules
We may then assign type
to `he likes' and type
to `likes him', permitting two equivalent resolutions
Rules (III) also allow alternative, though equivalent, resolutions of expressions considered earlier; e.g., the
sentence
can now also be grouped
where the predicate has type
We have seen above that the name `John' also has the type of the pronoun `he'. For the same reason, it also
has the type of the pronoun `him'. We symbolize the situation by writing
and more generally
These new rules may actually be required for computations. Suppose that from sample sentences such as
`books by him bore' we arrived at the type n*\n*/n' for by, where n' is short for (s/n)\s. The phrase `books by
John' then requires the computation
which utilizes rules (I), (IV) and (I) in this order. While Ajdukiewicz (1935) makes use of (III), Rules (IV)
suggest that the mathematical apparatus used hitherto may have to be expanded.
7. Syntactic calculus
By an expression we shall mean a string of words. Let us suppose that to certain expressions there have
been assigned certain primitive types. If A has type x and B has type y, we assign to the expression AB the
type xy, also written x.y. We assign type z/y to all expressions A such that AB has type z for any B of type y.
We assign type x\z to all expressions B such that AB has type z for any A of type x. We write x -> y to mean
that any expression of type x also has type y. We write x <-> y to mean that x -> y and y -> x. The
following rules are now valid:
Rules (a), (b), (b'), (e) hold trivially. Rules (c') and (d') are symmetric duals of (c) and (d), hence it suffices
to prove the latter. Assume xy -> z, and let A have type x. Then for any B of type y, AB has type z. Thus xy
-> z. The system presented above may be viewed abstractly as a formal language with a number of
primitive type symbols of type n, three connectives .,/,\ of type n\n/n, and a relation symbol -> of type n\s/n.
If we furthermore regard (a), (b) and (b') as axiom schemes and (c) to (e) as rules of inference, we obtain a
deductive system which may be called syntactic calculus. A number of rules are provable in the system; for
example,
Here (f) follows from xy -> xy by (c), (g) follows from z/y -> z/y by (d), (h) follows from (g) by (c'), (j)
follows from (i) by (c). Proofs of (i), (k) and (l) are a bit longer; we omit them in view of the decision
procedure established in Section 8. Proofs of (m) and (n) are arranged in tree form.
The syntactic theorems (g), (h), (i), and (k) coincide with the Rules (I), (IV), (III), and (II), respectively. An
illustration of (j), or rather its symmetric dual, appeared in Section 3, where it was pointed out that every
sentence-modifying adverb is also a predicate-modifying adverb, symbolically,
Rule (1) is due to Schönfinkel (1924), who observed that a function of two variables may be regarded as an
ordinary function of one variable whose value is again an ordinary function, so that
If a, b and f(a,b) have types x, y and z respectively, then f occurs in f(a, b) with type z/(xy) and in (fa)b with
type (z/y)/x, these two types being equivalent by (1).
8. Decision procedure
Is there an effective method for testing whether a sentence x > y of the syntactic calculus is deducible from
rules (a) to (e)? This is the so-called decision problem for the syntactic calculus. It turns out that the
decision procedure discovered by Gentzen (Kleene 1952, XV) for the intuitionistic propositional calculus
can be adapted for the present purpose. Following Gentzen, we define the sequent
to stand for
where x 1, . . ., x n, y are types. Now let x be any of the possible products of the x i obtained from some way of
grouping the string x 1x 2 . . . x n. Then it follows by repeated application of rules (b), (b'), (m) and (e) that
Hence the above sequent is also equivalent to the formula x -> y.
Let capitals denote sequences of types, possibly empty sequences. By `Ù, V'' we mean the sequence
obtained by juxtaposing U and V; if U is empty it means V, and if V is empty it means U. The following
rules are consequences of (a) to (e), provided T, P and Q are not empty.
Note that each of Rules (2) to (5) introduces an occurrence of one of the connectives .,/,\ into the
conclusion. To derive Rules (1) to (5) from (a) to (e), we observe that (1) is the same as (a), (2) becomes (c),
(2') becomes (c'), (4) is immediate, and (5) becomes (m), if the sequences T' U' V, P, and Q are replaced by
the products of the terms in them. It remains only to prove (3), since (3') is its symmetric dual. First let us
take the case where U and V are empty sequences. We replace T by some product t of its terms. Then (3)
takes the form: if t -> y and x -> z then (x/y)t -> z. This may be shown thus:
Next suppose U is empty but V is not. Replace the latter by a product v of its terms. Then (3) takes the form:
if t -> y and xv -> z then ((x/y)t)v -> z. This is established thus:
Similarly we deal with the remaining two cases in which U is not empty. Conversely, we shall deduce rules
(a) to (e) from (1) to (5), so that the two sets of rules are equivalent. For the moment we assume one
additional rule, the so-called cut,
It will appear later (Gentzen's theorem) that this new rule does not increase the set of theorems deducible
from (1) to (5). Now (a) coincides with (1), and (e) is a special case of (6), hence it suffices to prove (b), (c)
and (d). Proofs are arranged in tree form.
Let us verify that we have, in fact, a decision procedure. Given a sequent U -> x, we attempt to construct a
proof in tree form, working from the bottom up, using Rules (1) to (5), but not (6). Every upward step
eliminates an occurrence of one of the connectives .,/,\, and there are only a finite number of ways of
making this step. Therefore the total number of proofs that can be attempted is finite. The sequent U -> x is
deducible if and only if one of the attempted proofs is successful.
9. Proof of Gentzen's theorem

If T -> x and U,x,V -> y are both provable according to Rules (1) to (5), we will show that U,T,V -> y is
also provable, so that we may adopt as a new rule of inference the cut
We prove this by reduction on the degree of the cut, which is defined thus: Let d(x) be the number of
separate occurrences of the connectives .,/,\ in the type formula x, and let
then the degree of the above cut is
We will now show that in any cut, whose premises have been proved without cut,the conclusion is either
identical with one of the premises, or else the cut can be replaced by one or two such cuts of smaller degree.
Since no degree is negative, this will establish Gentzen's theorem. We consider seven cases, which need not
be mutually exclusive.
Case 1. T -> x is an instance of (1); then T = x and the conclusion coincides with the other premise.
Case 2. U,x,V -> y is an instance of (1); then U and V are empty and x = y. Hence the conclusion coincides
with the premise T -> x.
Case 3.The last step in the proof of T -> x uses one of Rules (2) to (5), but does not introduce the main
connective of x. Then T -> x is inferred by Rule (3), (3') or (4) from one or two sequents, one of which has
the form T' -> x with d(T') < d(T). The cut
has smaller degree than the given cut. More over the rule which led from T' -> x to T -> x will also lead
from U,T',V -> y to U,T,V -> y, as may be easily verified in the different subcases.
Case 4. The last step in the proof of U,x,V -> y uses one of Rules (2) to (5), but does not introduce the main
connective of x. Then U,x,V -> y is inferred from one or two sequents, one of which has the form U',x,V' ->
y'. Since the inference introduces an occurrence of one connective,
Therefore the cut
has smaller degree than the given cut. Moreover, the same rule which led from U',x,V' -> y' to U,x,V -> y
will lead from U',T,V' -> y' to U,T,V -> y, as is easily verified in the different subcases.
Case 5. The last steps in the proofs of both premises introduce the main connective of x = x'x'' = x'.x''. We
may replace
by
where both new cuts have smaller degree.
Case 6. The last steps in the proofs of both premises introduce the main connective of x = x'/x''. We may
replace
by
Case 7. This last case is like Case 6, except that x = x''\x', and is treated symmetrically.
10. Algebraic remarks

The following remarks may be of mathematical interest. If we write = instead of <->, the deductive system
studied here becomes a partially ordered system which resembles a residuated lattice (Birkhoff 1948, XIII).
It may be mapped homomorphically onto a free group by mapping each element x onto its congruence class
modulo ==, where x == y means that there exists a sequence x = x 1,. . ., x n = y (n greater than or 1 or equal),
such that x i -> x i+1 or x i+1 -> x i (1 less than or equal to i < n). If this group is abelianized, we obtain
something very much like the group of dimension symbols, which plays an important role in the grammar of
physics. It turns out that x == y if and only if
or equivalently
This result is easily proved by induction on the length of the given sequence connecting x with y, once the
equivalence of (1) and (2) has been established. Assuming (1), we put
and verify (2) by computation; assuming (2), we put
and verify (1) by computation.
NOTES
* This paper was written while the author held a summer Research Associateship from the
National Research Council of Canada. The present discussion of English grammar, in its final
form, owes much to the careful reading and helpful criticism of earlier versions by Bar-Hillel
and Chomsky.
1) An English translation of Adjukiewicz (1935) is available in: McCall, S. (1967): Polish Logic
1920-1939, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
2) Historically, these types can be traced back to the semantic types attributed by Tarski (1956:
215) to E. Husserl and S. Lesniewski. A similar technique for logical systems was developed
independently by Church (1940). Closely related is also the work by Curry (1952) on functional
characters. These correspond approximately to syntactic types for languages in which functors
are always written on the left of their arguments.
3) Chomsky (1956, 1957) believes that such methods can describe only a small proportion of
the sentences of a natural language and that other sentences should be obtained from these by
certain transformations.
4) See Birkhoff (1948). The calculus presented here is formally identical with a calculus
constructed by G.D. Findlay and the present author for a discussion of canonical mappings in
linear and multilinear algebra.
5) See [Gentzen 1934; Curry 1950, 1952; Kleene 1952, xv]. Curry [1952, appendix] has also
observed the close analogy between the theory of functional characters and the propositional
calculus.
6) There is a difficulty here: Of course we cannot check all admissible name contexts (whose
number is infinite) to see whether poor John can be fitted in. Our assignment of types is
tentative and subject to future revision.
7) This was kindly pointed out to the author by N. Chomsky.
REFERENCES
Ajdukiewicz, K. (1935):
``Die syntaktische Konnexität.'' Studia Philosophica 1, 1-27.
Bar-Hillel, Y. (1953):
`À quasi-arithmetical notation for syntactic description.'' Language 29 47-58.
Birkhoff, G. (1948):
Lattice Theory. New York: Amer. Math. Soc. Coll. Publ 25.
Bloomfield, L. (1933):
Language. New York: Henry Holt & Co.
Carnap, R. (1937):
The Logical Syntax of Language. New York: Harcourt and Kegan.

Chomsky, N. (1956):
``Three models for the description of language.'' I.R.E. Transactions on Information
Theory IT-2, 113-124.
Chomsky, N. (1957):
Syntactic Structures. The Hague: Mouton.
Church, A. (1940):
`À formulation of the simple theory of types.'' Journal of Symbolic Logic 5, 56-68.
Church, A. (1956):
Introduction to Mathematical Logic. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Curry, H.B. (1950):
A Theory of Formal Deducibility. University of Notre Dame Mathematical Lectures 6.
Curry, H.B. (1952):
Leçons de Logique algébrique. Paris: Gauthier-Villars.
Fries, C.C. (1952):
The Structure of English. New York: Harcourt, Brace & Co.
Gentzen, G. (1934):
`Ùntersuchungen üuber das Logische Schliessen.'' Mathematische Zeitschrift 39. 176-
210, 405-431.
Jespersen, O. (1924):
The Philosophy of Grammar. New York: George Allen & Uniwin.
Kleene, S.C. (1952):
Introduction to Metamathematics. New York: Van Nostrand.
Locke, W. and Booth, A., Eds. (1955):
Machine Translation of Languages. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
Quine, W.V.O. (1951):
Mathematical Logic. Revised edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rosenbloom, P. (1950):
The Elements of Mathematical Logic. New York: Dover.
Sapir, E. (1949):
Language. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World.
Schönfinkel, M. (1924):
``Über die Bausteine der mathematischen Logik.'' Mathematische Annalen 92, 305-316.
Tarski, A. (1956):
Logic, Semantics, Metamathematics. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Lambek

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lambek

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lambek

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Joachim Lambek: The Mathematics of Sentence Structure 03/09/2007 02:16 PM

The mathematics of sentence structure*

Otto Jespersen (1924).

3. Type list for a fragment of English

The indicated computation can also be written in one line:

5. Type computations in English

i. Insert brackets in all admissible ways.

A simple example, in which the problem of grouping does not arise, is

Only the assignment

produces a declarative sentence. This may be contrasted with

We may then assign type

to `he likes' and type

to `likes him', permitting two equivalent resolutions

can now also be grouped

where the predicate has type

and more generally

Hence the above sequent is also equivalent to the formula x -> y.

9. Proof of Gentzen's theorem

then the degree of the above cut is

Therefore the cut

where both new cuts have smaller degree.

10. Algebraic remarks

and verify (2) by computation; assuming (2), we put

and verify (1) by computation.

7) This was kindly pointed out to the author by N. Chomsky.

The Logical Syntax of Language. New York: Harcourt and Kegan.

You might also like