Talk:Categorial grammar

	Linguistics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Applied Linguistics Task Force.

Intransitive & transitive verb significations[edit]

An intransitive verb should have type NP\S instead of S/NP. A transitive verb should have type (NP\S)/NP (or NP\(S/NP) )

I think it should say what is a syntactic structure of a sentence in CG. In GB it is a tree, in HPSG it is a feature structure, ... Is it the particular proof? Or an equivalence class of proofs? Or is it the abstract connection between the strign and its semantics facilitated via proofs? --Jirka 16:29, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The syntactic structure of a sentence in CG is it's proof, following the parsing-as-deduction paradigm. There may be several proofs of the same one sentence. There a several equivalent proof methods/formats, (natural deduction, gentzen calculus, proof nets), Chrisblom86 (talk) 11:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The 'function' link should probably refer to 'Function (mathematics)' rather than 'Grammatical function'. I'll make the change if no-one objects within a few days. UKoch (talk) 14:00, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Expert subject[edit]

This article uses a fair bit of Mathematics, in particualar category theory and type theory, but appears to do so somewhat sloppily. I've linked simply typed lambda calculus for starters, but it's unclear to me if the so-called more than one arrow types are type constructors or what. Someone that knows about this topic and has a good grasp of the aforementioned math topics should give this article a close reading. Pcap ping 12:52, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given that Lambek and Bar-Hillel introduced this concept, I expect it can be written with proper mathematics. Pcap ping 13:22, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Springer EOM link I've added should be a good starting point. Pcap ping 14:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Categorial vs categorical[edit]

Although the SOM gives these as synonyms, Lambek clarifies that categorical refers to categories from category theory, whereas categorial refers "categories" in the sense of the Polish school of Logic, that is to type from type theory. Pcap ping 15:38, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility to non-mathematicians[edit]

This is a computational linguistics subject, and I expect the page will be accessed by many computational linguists whose mathematical training may be less than rigorous. I think I should make an effort to explain the concept in simpler terms first, then the mathematically rigorous definition that Pcap would like can be filled in by someone more familiar with category theory, type theory, etc. than me. That way, all computational linguists should be able to tell, after one glance, whether Categorial grammar is what they need. UKoch (talk) 11:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting[edit]

This is the first time I tried to do anything typographically complicated in Wikipedia. I would like make the little table of Introduction and Elimination rules have slightly wider columns, so that the formulas do not touch the divider lines, but haven't figured out how to do that. Programmer in Chief (talk) 01:28, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to make the formatting consistent by putting math brackets around everything that is math, but it seems to make it inconsistent anyway. Maybe it should choose on a per page basis how to render.Programmer in Chief (talk) 18:55, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notation[edit]

There are some published papers that use a different convention for the meaning of some of the Lambek grammatical types (e.g. B\A instead of A\B, or something like that). If anyone understands these alternative conventions, speak up. I am using Lambek's original notation, and have written a few words explaining it. If nobody defends the alternatives, I am going to assume that they are nothing but confusion and ignore them. Programmer in Chief (talk) 03:35, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I said above that I would ignore the backward convention, but I find that it is used in the Wikipedia article on combinatory categorial grammar, so I added a section on notation, which warns about it.Programmer in Chief (talk) 02:47, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]