CONCEPTUAL STRUCTURES AND CCG: 
LINKING THEORY AND INCORPORATED ARGUMENT ADJUNCTS 
Michael White 
Department of Computer and Information Science 
University of Pennsylvania 
Philadelphia, PA, USA 
mwhit e~linc, cis. npenn, edu 
Abstract 
In Combinatory Categnrial Grammar (CCG) \[Ste90, 
Ste91\], semantic function-argument structures are com- 
positionally produced through the course of a deriva- 
tion. These structures identify, inter alia, which enti- 
ties play the same roles in different events for expres- 
sions involving a wide range of coordinate constructs. 
This sameness of role (i.e. ~hematie) information is 
not identified, however, across eases of verbal diathe- 
sis. To handle these cases as well, the present paper 
demonstrates how to adapt the solution developed in 
Conceptual Semantics \[Jac90, Jac91\] to fit the CCG 
paradigm. 
The essence of the approach is to redefine the Link- 
ing Theory component of Conceptual Semantics in 
terms of CCG categories, so that derivations yield con- 
ceptual structures representing the desired thematic in- 
formation; in this way no changes are required on the 
CCG side. While this redefinition is largely straightfor- 
ward, an interesting problem arises in the case of Corn 
ceptual Semantics' Incorporated Argument Adjuncts. 
In examining these, the paper shows that they cannot 
be treated as adjuncts in the CCG sense without intro- 
ducing new machinery, nor without compromising the 
independence of the two theories. For this reason, the 
paper instead adopts the more traditional approach of 
treating them as oblique arguments. 
1 Introduction 
Tile present paper represents the first attempt to 
integrate Mark Steedman's theory of Combinatorial 
Categorial Grammar (CCG) \[Ste90, Ste91\] with Ray 
Jackendoff's theory of Conceptual Semantics \[Jac90, 
~lac91\]. The former is known for its successhd treat- 
ment of tong-distance dependencies, coordination, and, 
more recently, matters of discourse focus relating to 
intonation---none of which have been treated within 
Conceptual Semantics. The latter is known for its de- 
velopment of conceptual structures, which are mental 
representations intended to serve as the link between 
language and other areas of cognition, e.g. vision, ac- 
tion and inference--which CCG stops short of. Since 
CCG is a. lexically oriented theory of grammar, the two 
are entirely compatible, as well as complementary. 
The immediate motivation to attempt such an inte- 
gration, and the focus of the present paper, is CCG's in- 
complete treatment of sameness of role (i.e. thematic) 
information. In CCG, semantic function-argument 
structures are compositionally produced through the 
course of a derivation. These structures identify, in- 
ter alia, which entities play the same roles in different 
events for expressions involving a wide range of coor- 
dinate constructs. For example, the semantic function- 
argument structure shown in (lb) is derived for the 
sentence in (la) via type-raising, composition, and co- 
ordination of the bracketed non-standard constituent, 
following the analysis of Dowty \[Dow88\]: 1 
(la) Jack filled \[the urn with coffee\] and \[the thermos 
with milk\]. 
(lb) (fill' urn' coffee' jack') & (fill' thermos' mill" 
jack') 
Of course, such semantic function-argument structures 
are intended only for illustrative purposes; indeed, ac- 
cording to Steedman, semantic constants like urn' are 
"mere placeholders for a real semantics, intended to do 
no more than illustrate this compositionality." Never- 
theless, we may glean from these structures the require- 
ment that urn' and thern*os' play the same semantic 
role, since they are both first arguments to fill', and 
likewise for coffee' and milk', since they are both sec- 
ond arguments. In the terminology of Conceptual Se- 
mantics, these requirements may be restated in terms 
of thematic roles as follows: urn' and lhermos' share 
the thematic role Goal in their respective events; like- 
1The semantic role of determiners and tenne will be ignored 
in this paper. 
ACT~ DE COLING-92., NANI'ES, 23-28 Aofrr 1992 2 4 6 PROC. OF COLING-92, NANTES, AUG. 23-28, 1992 
wise, coffee' and milk' share tile thematic role Theme. 2 
Now, while CCG can thus be said to identify thematic 
information across a wide range of expressions not eas- 
ily analyzed in other theories, it does not do so across 
cases of verbal diathesis (i.e, argument structure alter- 
nations). For example, consider (2), together with two 
possible sets of interpretations that follow: 
(2a) Jack filled the urn {with decaf}. 
(2b) The urn filled {with decaf}. 
(2c) Coffee filled the urn {* with decal}. 
(3a) fill' urn' {decaf~ jack' 
(35) till' {decaf'} urn' 
(3c) tilt" urn' coffee' 
(4a) tiU.' arn' {deck/'} jack' 
(45) fillb'{decaf'} urn,' 
(4c) fill~' urn' coffee' 
Here it would not do to derive the function-argument 
structures shown in (3), as they incorrectly equate se- 
mantic roles in some eases, t'br example, the roles of 
jack" and coffee" are incorrectly said to be the same 
for Jack filled the urn and Coffee filled the urn. This 
problem may be avoided by introducing distinct con- 
stants ill//' (with possibly varying arities), as shown in 
(4). Note, however, that this approach is incomplete, 
insofar as it fails to equate any semantic roles across 
the functions til~ ', at least in the absence of further 
conditions on these functions. 
To handle these cases as well, the present paper 
demonstrates how to adapt the solution developed in 
Conceptual Semantics to fit tile CCG paradigm. This 
approach may be seen as one method of specifying, 
in a principled fashion, the further conditions on con- 
stants like filli' necessary to give a complete account 
of thematic role identities. 3 It should not be viewed, 
however, as a variant of purely syntactic approaches to 
verbal diathesis, such as the Unaccusative tlypothesis 
\[Bur86\] in GB, which posit movement between an un- 
derlying and a surface structure and traces to recover 
thematic roles) 
2 This restatetaent is actually a cor~iderable atrengtheldngb as 
CCG is not committed to anything stronger thmt the individual 
thematic role view (cf. \[Dow91D; thai is, it requi~s no nmre than 
jack' play the "filler" role, urn' and thermos' play the "filled" 
role, etc. 
3Another viable approach is of course to use ntemffng postu- 
lates. A detailed discussion of these alternatives is beyond the 
scope of tiffs paper (though cf. the discussioa in \[dacPO\]). 
4Agaln, cf. also \[J~cgo 3 for independent aa-guments in favor 
of the Concepttml Sematltics approach. 
Jack filled the urn 
~P:jack ~ (S\NP)/NP:~ilI_a ~ NP/~ Xlurn' 
........... > 
NP:urn' 
............................. > 
S\NP : fill_a' urn ~ 
........................................ < 
s : fill_a j urn ~ jack' 
Figure 1: A simple derivation. 
The essence of the present approach is to rede- 
fine the Linking Theory component of Conceptual Se- 
mantics in teals of CCG categories, so that deriva- 
tions yield conceptual structures representing the de- 
sired thematic information; in this way no changes are 
required on the CCG side. While this redefinition is 
largely straightforward, an interesting problem arises 
ill the case of Conceptual Semantics' Incorporated Ar- 
gument Adjuncts. In examining these, the paper shows 
that they cannot be treated as adjuncts in the CCG 
sense without introducing new machinery, nor with- 
out compromising the independence of the two the- 
ories. For this reason, the paper instead adopts the 
more traditionM approach of treating them as oblique 
arguments. 
2 Preliminaries 
This section reviews the details of CCG mid Conceptual 
Semmltics needed to understand their integration. 
2.1 CCC=, 
Exan~ple (2) sullices to review the necessary details of 
CCG. A CCG deriw~tion starts with lexical lookup, 
which identifies the functional type and semantics of 
cach constituent. For example, the category of the verb 
fill needed for .lack filled the urn is as shown in (5): 
(5) ~ill := ($\NP)/NP : fill_a' 
In this notation, a category consists of a syntactic cate- 
gory paired via an infix colon with a semantic function. 
Syntactic categories have arguments appearing to the 
right of slashes, results to the left. The direction of the 
slash indicates tile direction of tlle argument. Thus the 
syntactic category (S\NP)/NP defines a fimction that 
takes all NP to tile right and returns a function from an 
NP on the left to an S. Categories may combine via for- 
ward or backward functional application, indicated as 
ACTF~S DE COLING-92, Nhrcre.s, 23-28 AO~'r 1992 2 4 7 PROC. OF COL1NG-92, NANTEs, AUG. 23-28, 1992 
> and < in Figure 1. Categories may also combine by 
other means such as composition, often yielding multi- 
ple derivations of the same string. For present purposes 
this is of no significance, as all of the derivations of will 
produce the stone compositional meaning. Derivations 
for the rest of the examples in (2) are quite similar, 
differing only in the lexically specified category for fill. 
2.2 Conceptual Semantics 
Example (2) again suffices to review the necessary de- 
tails of Conceptual Semantics. The version of Concep- 
tual Semantics presented below is that of \[Jac90\] prior 
to the introduction of Linking Theory, plus a few mod- 
ifications. Let us begin with the representation of an 
urn. Jackendoff represents an urn as the conceptual 
structure shown in (6): 
(~) \[Thing URN\] 
This represents an entity of ontological type Thing that 
meets the featural description URN. 5 To distinguish 
different urns, I will follow Zwarts and Verkuyl \[ZV91\] 
in requiring all conceptual structures to have an index, 
as shown in (7a): 
(7a) \[Thing URN\]j 
(Tb) Thing(j) & URN(j) 
Note that under the Zwarts and Verkuyl formalization, 
(7a) is roughly equivalent to the more familiar (7b). 
In addition to the ontological type Thing, an entity 
may be of type Place, Path, Event, State, Manner or 
Property. The Place in t, he urn, for example, would be 
represented as in (8a): 
(8&) \[Place IN(\[Thins URN\]/)\]p 
(8b) Place(p) & IN(j,p) & Thing(j) & URN(j) 
Here we have a conceptual function IN: Thing ~ Place 
mapping the urn j to the locatiou inside the urn p. Ex- 
ample (8b) is again an approximate notational variant. 
Moving on to the stative reading of example (2c), 
Coffee filled the urn, we introduce the conceptual func- 
tion BE: Thing x Place -, State (note that as in this 
example, ontological categories and indices will often 
~Sma\]l caps will be used to indicate feature~ that are atomic 
in Conceptual Structure, serving oldy ~ links to other areas of cognition. 
be suppressed for typographical convenience): 
(9a) \[ BE(\[COFFEE\],, \[IN(\[URN\])\]p) \] 
State FILL s 
(9b) State(a) &FILL(g) & BE(i,p,s) & ... 
Extending \[Jac90\], I have included the conceptual atom 
FILL in (9a). As is the case of other categories, this 
atom serves as a pointer to semantic information not 
captured by the decomposition. Thus the state s is to 
be understood as one characterized by the atom FILL 
and by the feature BE(I,p). Note that the variant in 
(9b) is reminiscent of the neo-Davidsonian approach 
adopted by Parsons \[Parg0\]. 
To get the inchoative reading of (2c), we need only 
add the conceptual function INCH: State -~ Event 
shown in (10): 
I INCH( \[ BE(\[cOFFEE\]' \[IN(\[URN\])\]) \] 1 FILL ) 
Event • 
(10) 
The conceptual structure for example (2b), The urn 
filled {with deca~, would differ minimally from (10) by 
having \[DECAF\] as the Theme instead of \[COFFEE\], or 
by having the Theme left implicit. 
We are now in a position to construct the con- 
ceptual structure for example (2a), Jack filled the urn 
{with decal}, by adding the External Instigator func- 
tion C(AU)S(E): Thing x Event --* Event and the 
Actor-Patient function AFF(ECT): Thing x Thing ~-* 
Event: 
(1 In) FILL 
AFF(\[JACK\]/, \[URNJj) 
Event FILL e 
(llb) Event(e) & FILL(e) & AFF(i,j,e) & ... 
Here the representation of the inchoative event serving 
as the second argument of CS has an implicit Theme k, 
which the with-PP would specify if present. Note also 
that the entity \[JACK\]/ serves as both Actor and Exter- 
nal Instigator, and likewise \[URN\]/ serves as both Pa- 
tiant mid Goal, by virtue of coindexation. And again, 
the variant in (1 lb) indicates the similarity of this ap- 
proach to the neo-Davidsonian one. 
At this point we may observe that representations 
in (9) - (11) capture the similarities and differences in 
semantic roles observed in tile arguments of the verb 
ACTES DE COLING-92, NANTES, 23-28 Ao(rr 1992 2 4 8 PROC. OF COLING-92, NANTES, AUG. 23-28, 1992 
fill in (2). This follows straightforwardly from the in- 
clusion of representations (9) mid (10) within (11), to- 
gether with the semantic coindexation. 
Next we turn to a brief description of how these 
representations are constructed in \[Jac90\]. Two repre- 
sentative lexical entries, that of the stative Jill of (2c) 
and causative-inchoative fill of (2a), are shown below: 
l fill \] V 
__ NPj 
\[\[ FILLBE(\[Thing \]i, \[IN(\[Thins \]j)\]) \] 
(12) 
fill 
V 
__ NPj tpp with NPk\] 
CS i INCH BE(k,\[IN(j)\]) \] 
1 L FILL 
(13) 
in (12), the verb fill subcategorizes an object NP in- 
dexed j, as well as an external argument indexed i by 
convention. Sinfilarly, (13) subcategorizes an object 
NP and a wi~h-PP. Arguments to the verb are inte- 
grated into the above conceptual structure using the 
Argument Fusion Rule, which links the coindexed con- 
stituents in the obvious way, as long as they are seman- 
tically compatible. 
3 Linking Theory 
This section details how the Linking Theory component 
of Conceptual Semantics can be redefined in terms of 
CCG categories, so that derivations yield conceptual 
structures like (9) - (11). Before introducing Linking 
Theory, however, we shall first examine how tim version 
of Conceptual Semantics presented in the last section 
can he adapted to fit the CCG paradigm. 
As was suggested in ,Section 1, the present approach 
may be seen as specifying constraints on the constants 
\]Jill ' so that the desired thematic role identities are cap- 
tured. This may be done by simply redefining lexical 
entries like (12) and (13) as follows: 
fill 
V 
S\NP/NP ~ji. \[ BE~i, itN(j)\]) \] 
(14) 
fill 
V 
S \ NP / PP(with) / NP 
CS(i, INCII(BE(k,\[IN(j)\]) ) ) 1 
AjlS. AFF(i,j) 
FILL 
(15) 
IIere the subcategorization frmnes have been replaced 
by the appropriate CCG categories, and the conceptual 
structures have been made into the appropriate func- 
tions corresponding to the filli ' constants. Because this 
information is supplied lexically, no changes need be 
made on the CCG side. Thus conceptual structures for 
sentences like those in (la) and (2) may be easily de- 
rived with the addition of just a few more lexical items 
like those below: 6 
Jack \] 
(16) PN NP 
\[JACK\] 
with \] 
Prep 
(17) I'P(with) / NP 
~x .x 
Given such lexical items, the constants appearing in 
(lb) and (4) may be replaced yielding fimctions like 
the first one appearing in Figure 2, which is equivalent 
mudulo an appropriate definition of \]?-reduction to tile 
one appearing; beh)w it. Such a defnition must mirror 
that of Argument Fnsion, insofar as it must append 
features specified by tile argument to those specified 
6This particular with-PP i6 treated aA semantically vacuoua, 
unlike (say) the ~ith-accompamment modifier. 
ACRES DE COLING-92, NAm'ES, 23-28 Aot~' 1992 2 4 9 PROC. OV COLING-92, NANTES, AO~. 23-28, 1992 
/ \[ I ) CS(i, INCH( FILL Ajki. AFF(i,j) \[URN\] \[D~CAF\] \[JACK\] 
FILL 
\[ CS(i)FILL AFF(\[JACK\]i,\[INCH(\[\[URN\]j) FILL BE(\[DECAF\], \[\]N(j)\])\])\])1 
Figure 2: An example of Argument Fusion as/~-reduction. 
by the head. A schematic version appears in (18): 
(18) Argument Fusion as ~-reduction Schema: 
(Ax.\[... \[XFEATS\] .... \] \[YFEATS\]v ) 
Tlirning now to the introduction of Linking Theory, 
we may observe that there is nothing in theory as pre- 
sented to this point which would eliminate hypotheticM 
verbs such as delli~ below \[Car88\]) which would have 
(19) meaning Jack filled the urn. 
(19) * The urn dellifed Jack. 
To capture such generalizations, Jackendoffproposes to 
eliminate rigid coindexation between syntactic and se- 
mantic structures, opting to introduce Linking Theory 
to handle this task instead. Lexieal entries are there- 
fore modified to indicate only which conceptual con- 
stituents must be specified, and not which syntactic 
constituents must specify them. The selected concep- 
tual arguments are annotated with an A, or A-marked. 
In present terms, this means changing entries like (15) 
to ones like (20): ~' 
fill, dellif 
V 
S\NP/NP 
(20) 
Categories like the one in (15) thus become derived in- 
rThe w/~h-PP is unselected for exp~ititory reasons only. 
stead of lexically specified, with Linking Theory spec- 
ifying constraints on such derivations to permit Aji as 
the only possible argument ordering. The central idea 
behind such constraints is as follows: Given (indepen- 
dently motivated) syntactic and semantic hierarchies, 
do not allow inconsistent orderings. This is stated more 
formally in (21): 
(21) Linking Principle: A semantic function headed 
by Aa:l...xn in a CCG category must not have 
Xi -~sem ~j and ~i ~'~yn x/, or vice-versa, where 
-~sern and "~sy, encode the semantic and syntactic 
hierarchies, respectively. 
Note that if Actor "~sem Patient and Subject -%yn Di- 
rect Object, then the ordering Aij (with indices as be- 
fore) required for dellif is indeed ruled out by the Link- 
ing Principle. s 
As developed so far, tile status of the Linking Prin- 
ciple in the present framework is that of a filter on 
representations. The Linking Principle may be made 
more constructive by eliminating syntactic specifica- 
tions from lexical entries, following (say) Rappaport 
and Levin \[RL88\] or Pinker \[Pin89\], deriving them in- 
stead via Linking Rules which obey the Linking Prin- 
ciple. :\]ackendoff does not rule out this possibility, but 
chooses to develop instead an approach in which both 
syntactic and semantic subcategorization is retained. 
I shall part company with Jackendoff on this issue, 
as I find his arguments in favor of retaining subcate- 
gorization unconvincing. These arguments are twofold. 
First, verbs appear to idiosyncratically specify prepo- 
sitions. Such verbs may be accommodated within the 
present framework by simply providing fully specified 
categories like (15). Second, and more interestingly, 
some Incorporated Argument Adjuncts arc syntacti- 
cally obligatory. This argument presupposes, of course, 
a Observe that the syntactic ordering cannot be defined from the syntactic type if subjects are to precede complements. 
ACTES DE COLING-92, NANTES, 23-28 hOb'T 1992 2 5 0 PROC. OF COLING-92, NANTF~S, AUG. 23-28, 1992 
The ~ank filled with water 
................................... 
~P/N ~ S\NP (S\NP)\(S\NP)/~P ~p 
NP (skNP)k(s\NP) 
............................. < 
s\NP 
S 
Figure 3: A Derivation Involving the Hypothetical 
CCG With-Theme Adjunct, 
the correctness of the Incorporated Argument Adjunct 
analysis, to which we now turn. 
4 Incorporated Argument Ad- 
juncts 
Jackendoff observes that with-PPs may specify an op- 
tional Theme argument across a wide range of verbs. 
This observation leads him to hypothesize that such 
with-Themes should not be treated as subcategorized 
arguments, bnt rather as adjuncts. Such au analy- 
sis is partieulary appealing in cases involving an in- 
corporated Theme, such as butter, as in Jack but- 
feted ~he bread with that yacky stuff. 9 We shall see, 
however, that this analysis cannot be adapted into 
the present framework without adding substantial new 
machinery, 1° nor without compromising the indepen- 
dence of the two theories. In contrast, the traditional 
oblique argument analysis will be seen to surmount 
these difficulties in a natural way. 
Jaekendoff's informal version of the With-Theme 
Adjunct Rule is repeated below: 
(22) With-Theme Adjunct Rule: In a sentence con- 
taining with NP in the VP, if the Theme position 
is not indexed in the verb's lexical entry, then the 
object of with cazl be interpreted as Theme. 
With (22) in mind, one might try to redefine (17) as 
follows: 
Prep 
(23) (S\Nl') \ (S\m') / NP 
Ayfz.withTheme y (f x) 
Here with is defined as a function from an NP to a VP- 
nit shtmld be noted that Jackendoif does not adequately ad- 
dress the issue of why the class of apread~ appropriate for the verb 
butter ia larger than the class apppopriate for the ,mue noun. 
l°As was done in m~ ear|ier vexalon of this paper. 
modifier, where the constant WithTheme stands in for 
the function that fuses the Theme with the specified 
NP. A sample syntactic derivation using (23) is shown 
in Figure 3. 
There are two problems with adequately specify- 
ing the function withTh~me. First, one might question 
its introduction on theoretical grounds, as it marks 
a substantial departure from the simple rule (18), /3- 
reduction as Argument Fusion, compromising the inde- 
pendence of the two theories. Second, there is an em- 
pirical problem of avoiding examples like (2c), * CoSec 
filled the urn wi~h decaf . In (22), Jackendoff stipulates 
that the Thenm position be unindexed in the verb's lex- 
ical entry. This argmneut indexing information is no 
longer available, however, at the point in the deriva- 
tion in which the withThcm e constant is to perform its 
magic, since the function (f x) is already saturated. 
Again, while adequate fixes might be possible, any such 
approach would seem quite ad hoc. 
Instead of treating these wilh-PPs as adjuncts, we 
may rehrterpret Jackendoff's (22) as a Linking Rule for 
oblique with-Theme PP arguments. This rule would 
then bc just one of those necessary to derive the cate~ 
gory in (15) from tim lexical entry in (24) below; other 
rules would map Actors to Subject NPs, Patients to 
Direct Object NPs, etc. Note that in this entry the 
subcategorization of the Theme argmnent is indicated 
to be optional by tim curly braces: 
fill 
V 
(24) 
Under this formulation, both of the problen~q men- 
tioned above disappear: first, the Theme's specifica~ 
tion again becomas like that of any other argument, 
and second, the ungrammatieality of * Coffee filled 
the urn with decal again becomes a straightforward 
consequence of the independently motivated (Neo) 0- 
Criterion. 
At this point we may return to Jaekeadoff's ar- 
gument in favor of retaining syntactic subcategoriza~ 
tion. After having chosen to treat oblique argumeuts 
as Incorporated Arguumnt Adjuncts, Jackendoff then 
observes that they are not always optional. Rathcr 
than retreat, however, he suggests that these are cases 
of syntactic subcategorization not matching semantic 
subcategorization. For example, consider (25): 
(25) Jack rid the room {* 0 / of insects}. 
The verb *~d is like empty in taking an of-Theme Pl', 
AcrEs lJ~ COLlNG-92, NANTES, 23-28 AO~r 1992 2 $1 PROC. or: COLING-92, Na~rr~.s, AUG. 23-28, 1992 
semantically the inverse of the with-Theme PP. Unlike 
empty, however, the PP is obligatory for r/d. This 
leads Jackdendoff to posit a lexieal entry like (26), in 
which the Theme is not A-marked but the PP is oblig- 
atory. Such lexical entries are then used to argue in 
favor of retaining syntactic subeategorizatiou. This 
rather unusual move does not seem to be necessary, 
however. ~ Consider the representation adopted in the 
present framework, appearing in (27). This represen- 
tation adequately captures r/d's idiosyncratic selection 
facts by simply requiring the A-marking of the Theme, 
forcing the appearance of the with-PP. Of course, to the 
extent that the existence of lexical entries like (26) is 
called into question, the argument following from their 
existence becomes likewise suspect. 
rid 
V 
__ NP \[pp of NP\] 
\[CS(i,\[INCH(\[NOTBE(k,\[IN(j)\])\])\])IAFF(iA,j A )RID 
(26) 
rid 
V 
\[ RIDAFF(iA'jA)CS(i'\[INCH(\[NOTBE(kA'\[IN(j)\])\])\]) \] 
(27) 
5 Conclusion 
The present paper has suggested that Conceptual Se- 
mantics and Combinatory Categorial Grammar are 
compatible, even complementary theories. It has ar- 
gued that (1) Conceptual Semantics need only be min- 
imally modified to adapt it to tile CCG paradigm, thus 
providing CCG with a more complete account of the- 
matic role identities, and (2) these changes need not af- 
fect CCG at all if Conceptual Semantics' Incorporated 
Argument Adjuncts are treated as oblique arguments. 
A Prolog implementation of the framework pre- 
sented herein is currently in progress. Future work 
shall include the incorporation of temporal Modifying 
Adjuncts and Superordinate Adjuncts into the present 
framework, as well as the aspectual-type coercions or 
rules of eonstrual of \[MS88, Jaegl\]. 
Acknowledgements 
Thanks to Mark Steedman, Bob Frank, and Michael 
Niv. This research was supported by tile following 
grants: DAP~PA no. N00014-90-J-1863, ARO no. 
DAAL 03-89-C-0031, NSF no. IRI 90-16592, and Ben 
Franklin no. 91S.3078C-1. The author is supported by 
an NSF Graduate Fellowship. 
\[Par90\] 
\[Pin89\] 
\[RL88\] 
\[st~9o\] 
\[Ste91\] 
\[zv91\] 
AcrF.s DE COLING-92, NANTES, 23-28 Aofrr 1992 2 5 2 PROC. OF COLING-92, NANTES, AUG. 23-28, 1992 

References 

\[Bur86\] Luigi Barzio. Italian Syntax: A Government 
Binding Approach. Reidel, 1986. 

\[Car88\] Richard Carter. Some Linking Regularities. In 
B. Levin and C. Tenny, editors, On Linking: Pa- 
pers by Richard Carter. Center for Cognitive Sci- 
ence Lexicon Project, MIT, 1988. Originally writ- 
ten in 1976. 

\[Dow88\] David Dowty. Type raising, functional com- 
position, and non-constituent conjunction. In 
R. Oehrle, E. Bach, and D. Wheeler, editors, Cat- 
ogorial Grammars and Natural Language Strnc. 
tares. Reidel, 1988. 

\[Dow91\] David Dowty. Thematic proto-roles and argument 
selection. Language, 67(3):547-615, 1991. 

\[Jacg0\] Ray Jackendoff. Semantic Structures. MIT Pre~s, 
1990. 

\[Jac91\] Ray Jackendoff. Parts and boundaries. Cognition, 
41:9-45, 1991. 

\[MS88\] Marc Moens and Mark Steedman. Temporal on- 
tology and temporal reference. Computational 
Linguistics, June 1988. 

Terence Parsons. Events in the Semantics of Eu. 
glish: A Study in Subatomic Semantics, volume 21 
of Current Studies in Linguistics. MIT Press, 
1990. 

Steven Pinker. Learnability and Cognition: The 
Acquisition o\] Argument Structure. MIT Press, 
1989. 

Malka Rappaport and Beth Levin. What to do 
with theta-roles. In Wendy Wilkins, editor, The- 
matic Relations, volume 21 of Syntax and Seman- 
tics, pages 7-36. Academic Press, Inc., 1988. 

Mark Steedman. Gapping as Constituent Coor- 
dination. Linguistics and Philosophy, 13:207-263, 
April 1990. 

Mark Steedman. Structure and Intonation. Lan- 
guage, 68(2):260-296, 1991. 

Joost Zwarts and Henk Verkuyl. An algebra of 
conceptual structure; an investigation into Jack- 
endoff's conceptual semantics. To appear in Lin- 
guistics and Philosophy, 1991. 
