Geach’s rich paper ‘A Program for Syntax’ introduced many ideas into the arena of categorial grammar, not all of which have been given the attention they warrant in the thirty years since its first publication. Rather surprisingly, one of our findings (Section 3 below) is that the paper not only does not contain a statement of what has widely come to be known as “Geach’s Rule”, but in fact presents considerations which are inimical to the adoption of the rule in (...) question. With regard to at least some amongst the numerous other points extracted here from Geach’s discussion, we shall not be able to reach so definitive a conclusion, and content ourselves with giving the issues an airing. (shrink)

Prioritized bases, i.e., weakly ordered sets of sentences, have been used for specifying an agent’s ‘basic’ or ‘explicit’ beliefs, or alternatively for compactly encoding an agent’s belief state without the claim that the elements of a base are in any sense basic. This paper focuses on the second interpretation and shows how a shifting of priorities in prioritized bases can be used for a simple, constructive and intuitive way of representing a large variety of methods for the change of belief (...) states—methods that have usually been characterized semantically by a system-of-spheres modeling. Among the methods represented are ‘radical’, ‘conservative’ and ‘moderate’ revision, ‘revision by comparison’ in its raising and lowering variants, as well as various constructions for belief expansion and contraction. Importantly, none of these methods makes any use of numbers. (shrink)

In [4], I proved that the product-free fragment L of Lambek's syntactic calculus (cf. Lambek [2]) is not finitely axiomatizable if the only rule of inference admitted is Lambek's cut-rule. The proof (which is rather complicated and roundabout) was subsequently adapted by Kandulski [1] to the non-associative variant NL of L (cf. Lambek [3]). It turns out, however, that there exists an extremely simple method of non-finite-axiomatizability proofs which works uniformly for different subsystems of L (in particular, for NL). We (...) present it below to the use of those who refer to the results of [1] and [4]. (shrink)

In Zielonka (1981a, 1989), I found an axiomatics for the product-free calculus L of Lambek whose only rule is the cut rule. Following Buszkowski (1987), we shall call such an axiomatics linear. It was proved that there is no finite axiomatics of that kind. In Lambek's original version of the calculus (cf. Lambek, 1958), sequent antecedents are non empty. By dropping this restriction, we obtain the variant L0 of L. This modification, introduced in the early 1980s (see, e.g., Buszkowski, 1985; (...) Zielonka, 1981b), did not gain much popularity initially; a more common use of L0 has only occurred within the last few years (cf. Roorda, 1991: 29). In Zielonka (1988), I established analogous results for the restriction of L0 to sequents without left (or, equivalently, right) division. Here, I present a similar (cut-rule) axiomatics for the whole of L0.This paper is an extended, corrected, and completed version of Zielonka (1997). Unlike in Zielonka (1997), the notion of rank of an axiom is introduced which, although inessential for the results given below, may be useful for the expected non-finite-axiomatizability proof.The paper follows the same way of subject exposition as Zielonka (2000) but it is technically much less complicated. I restrict myself to giving bare results; all the ideological background is exactly the same as in case of the non-associative calculusNL0 and those who are interested in it are requested to consult the introductory section of Zielonka (2000). (shrink)

Axiomatics which do not employ rules of inference other than the cut rule are given for commutative product-free Lambek calculus in two variants: with and without the empty string. Unlike the former variant, the latter one turns out not to be finitely axiomatizable in that way.

Discontinuity refers to the character of many natural language constructions wherein signs differ markedly in their prosodic and semantic forms. As such it presents interesting demands on monostratal computational formalisms which aspire to descriptive adequacy. Pied piping, in particular, is argued by Pollard (1988) to motivate phrase structure-style feature percolation. In the context of categorial grammar, Bach (1981, 1984), Moortgat (1988, 1990, 1991) and others have sought to provide categorial operators suited to discontinuity. These attempts encounter certain difficulties with respect (...) to model theory and/or proof theory, difficulties which the current proposals are intended to resolve.Lambek calculus is complete for interpretation byresiduation with respect to the adjunction operation of groupoid algebras (Buszkowski 1986). In Moortgat and Morrill (1991) it is shown how to give calculi for families of categorial operators, each defined by residuation with respect to an operation of prosodic adjunction (associative, non-associative, or with interactive axioms). The present paper treats discontinuity in this way, by residuation with respect to three adjunctions: + (associative), (.,.) (split-point marking), andW (wrapping) related by the equations 1+s 2+s 3=(s 1,s 3)Ws 2. We show how the resulting methods apply to discontinuous functors, quantifier scope and quantifier scope ambiguity, pied piping, and subject and object antecedent reflexivisation. (shrink)