Are (linguists') propositions (topos) propositions?

  • Authors:
  • Carl Pollard

  • Affiliations:
  • Department of Linguistics, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio

  • Venue:
  • LACL'11 Proceedings of the 6th international conference on Logical aspects of computational linguistics
  • Year:
  • 2011

Quantified Score

Hi-index 0.00

Visualization

Abstract

Lambek([22]) proposed a categorial achitecture for natural language grammars, whereby syntax and semantics are modelled by a biclosed monoidal category (bmc) and a cartesian closed category (ccc) respectively, and semantic interpretation by a functor from syntax to semantics that preserves the biclosed monoidal structure; essentially this same architecture underlies the framework of abstract categorial grammar (ACG, de Groote [12]), except that the bmc is now symmetric, in keeping with the collapsing of Lambek's directional implications / and \ into the linear implication -. At the same time, Lambek proposed that the semantic ccc bears the additional structure of a topos, and that the meanings of declarative sentences--linguist's propositions--can be identified with propositions in the sense of topos theory, i.e. morphisms from the terminal object 1 to the subobject classifier Ω. Here we show (1) that this proposal as it stands is untenable, and (2) that a serviceable framework results if a preboolean algebra object distinct from Ω is employed instead. Additionally we show that the resulting categorial structure provides 'for free', via Stone duality, an account of the relationship between fine-grained 'hyperintensional' semantics ([6],[33],[27],[28]) and the familiar coarse-grained intensional semantics of Carnap ([2]) and Montague ([26]).