---
title: "A Feature-Driven Tensor Semantics for — Paulson 2026"
description: "The paper asks whether Minimalist Grammars (MGs) can be paired with tensor-based distributional semantics as directly as CCG, where Maillard et al."
authors: ["John Paulson", "Aniello De Santo", "Jonathan Rawski"]
year: 2026
venue: "Proceedings of the Society for Computation in Linguistics 2026"
source: "https://aclanthology.org/2026.scil-main.20/"
doi: "10.18653/v1/2026.scil-main.20"
licence: "CC BY 4.0 (ACL Anthology)"
licence_url: "https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"
summary_licence: "Elamur Cosmic License"
canonical: "https://research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/paulson-2026-feature-driven-tensor-semantics-minimalist/"
---
[Elamur Research](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/) · [this page in HTML](https://research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/paulson-2026-feature-driven-tensor-semantics-minimalist/)

[home](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/) / [papers](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/) / [2026](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/2026/) / A Feature-Driven Tensor Semantics for Minimalist Grammars

# A Feature-Driven Tensor Semantics for Minimalist Grammars

**Authors:** John Paulson, Aniello De Santo, Jonathan Rawski · **Year:** 2026 · **Venue:** Proceedings of the Society for Computation in Linguistics 2026 · **Licence:** [CC BY 4.0 (ACL Anthology)](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

**Links:** [Publisher's page](https://aclanthology.org/2026.scil-main.20/) · [PDF](https://aclanthology.org/2026.scil-main.20.pdf) · [DOI 10.18653/v1/2026.scil-main.20](https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2026.scil-main.20) · [OpenAlex](https://openalex.org/W7166880665)

**Citations:** 0 citations (openalex-snapshot · 2026-10-14)

## Summary
The paper asks whether Minimalist Grammars (MGs) can be paired with tensor-based distributional semantics as directly as CCG, where Maillard et al. (2014) already linked categorial derivations to tensor operations. The work is purely formal. It uses no corpus, trained model or empirical evaluation. The authors start from beim Graben and Gerth (2012), who recast MG merge and move as operations in vector spaces. Each lexical item gets a meaning tensor whose order and component spaces mirror its syntactic feature string. Because tensors act as multilinear maps, merge can be paired with tensor contraction: checking a selector against a selectee applies a function to its argument. Move only reorders material already in the structure, so it leaves the semantic tensor unchanged. A step-by-step wh-question derivation shows syntax and semantics proceeding in parallel. The result matters because it brings a mainstream generative formalism into neuro-symbolic modelling. It also prepares the ground for semantically informed dynamical models of parsing and sentence processing.

## Key points
- The construction combines two prior results: beim Graben and Gerth's (2012) vector-space recasting of MGs and the CCG tensor semantics of Maillard et al. (2014).
- Categorial features (f) and selector features (=f) determine the tensor spaces. Licensee (f−) and licensor (f+) movement features have no semantic counterpart. Merge corresponds to contraction, while move is the identity on meaning.
- The worked example derives a wh-question ("what did Alice eat") with phonologically null v and T heads. Contraction steps progressively lower tensor order until the result is a vector in the clause-type space.
- The treatment of move matches Kobele's (2012) moveEmpty. The authors conjecture that a storage-based variant, which delays a mover's semantic contribution, would extend the system easily. The Adjoin operation is left out.
- Future directions include:
  - learning interpretable semantic tensors;
  - exploiting broad-coverage MG supertagging parsers (Torr et al.);
  - building dynamical, cognitively plausible parsing models.

Published in Proceedings of SCiL 2026, pp. 219–229.

*Our summary of the paper, in our own words — not its text. The work belongs to its authors; read it at the links above.*

Fields: [Linguistics & languages](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/shelves/linguistics/)

## Cite

The paper itself, not this page. BibTeX from the library's record of the work.

```bibtex
@inproceedings{paulson2026feature,
  title = {{A Feature-Driven Tensor Semantics for Minimalist Grammars}},
  author = {Paulson, John and Santo, Aniello De and Rawski, Jonathan},
  booktitle = {Proceedings of the Society for Computation in Linguistics 2026},
  year = {2026},
  doi = {10.18653/v1/2026.scil-main.20},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2026.scil-main.20}
}
```

- [← previous A Dialogue System for Second Language Learning with Dynamic Adaptation to In-Dialogue Difficulty Changes](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/morioka-2026-dialogue-system-second-language-learning/)
- [next → A Fine-Grained Linguistic Evaluation of Low-Resource Luxembourgish–English MT](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/rehlinger-2026-fine-grained-linguistic-evaluation-low/)
- [↑ back to papers of 2026](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/2026/)

## References

72 references, 3 of them with a card of ours. ↗ leads to the work, «find» searches for one we have no id for yet.

1. David Adger. 2003. Core syntax: A minimalist approach. Oxford University Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=David+Adger%2E+2003%2E+Core+syntax%3A+A+minimalist+approach%2E+Oxford+University+Press%2E)
2. Srinivas Bangalore and Aravind Joshi. 1999. Supertagging: An approach to almost parsing. Computational linguistics, 25(2):237–265. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Srinivas+Bangalore+and+Aravind+Joshi%2E+1999%2E+Supertagging%3A+An+approach+to+almost+parsing%2E+Computational+linguistics%2C+25%282%29%3A237%E2%80%93265%2E) [our card](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/bangalore-1999-supertagging-approach-almost-parsing/)
3. Marco Baroni. 2013. Composition in distributional semantics. Language and Linguistics Compass, 7(10):511–522. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Marco+Baroni%2E+2013%2E+Composition+in+distributional+semantics%2E+Language+and+Linguistics+Compass%2C+7%2810%29%3A511%E2%80%93522%2E)
4. Katrin Erk. 2012. Vector space models of word meaning and phrase meaning: A survey. Language and Linguistics Compass, 6(10):635–653. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Katrin+Erk%2E+2012%2E+Vector+space+models+of+word+meaning+and+phrase+meaning%3A+A+survey%2E+Language+and+Linguistics+Compass%2C+6%2810%29%3A635%E2%80%93653%2E)
5. Marco Baroni, Raffaella Bernardi, and Roberto Zamparelli. 2014. Frege in space: A program for composition distributional semantics. Linguistic Issues in Language Technology, 9. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Marco+Baroni%2C+Raffaella+Bernardi%2C+and+Roberto+Zamparelli%2E+2014%2E+Frege+in+space%3A+A+program+for+composition+distributional+semantics%2E+Linguistic+Issues+in+Language+Technology%2C+9%2E)
6. Katrin Erk. 2022. The probabilistic turn in semantics and pragmatics. Annual Review of Linguistics, 8:101–121. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Katrin+Erk%2E+2022%2E+The+probabilistic+turn+in+semantics+and+pragmatics%2E+Annual+Review+of+Linguistics%2C+8%3A101%E2%80%93121%2E)
7. Peter beim Graben and Sabrina Gerth. 2012. Geometric representations for minimalist grammars. Journal of logic, language, and information, 21(4):393–432. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Peter+beim+Graben+and+Sabrina+Gerth%2E+2012%2E+Geometric+representations+for+minimalist+grammars%2E+Journal+of+logic%2C+language%2C+and+information%2C+21%284%29%3A393%E2%80%93432%2E)
8. James Fodor and Shinsuke Suzuki. 2026. Using computational semantics to study meaning in the brain. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 181:106514. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=James+Fodor+and+Shinsuke+Suzuki%2E+2026%2E+Using+computational+semantics+to+study+meaning+in+the+brain%2E+Neuroscience+%26+Biobehavioral+Reviews%2C+181%3A106514%2E)
9. Gemma Boleda. 2020. Distributional semantics and linguistic theory. Annual Review of Linguistics, 6:213–234. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Gemma+Boleda%2E+2020%2E+Distributional+semantics+and+linguistic+theory%2E+Annual+Review+of+Linguistics%2C+6%3A213%E2%80%93234%2E)
10. Meaghan Fowlie. 2013. Order and optionality: Minimalist grammars with adjunction. In Proceedings of the 13th Meeting on the Mathematics of Language (MoL 13), pages 12–20. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Meaghan+Fowlie%2E+2013%2E+Order+and+optionality%3A+Minimalist+grammars+with+adjunction%2E+In+Proceedings+of+the+13th+Meeting+on+the+Mathematics+of+Language+%28MoL+13%29%2C+pages+12%E2%80%9320%2E)
11. Gemma Boleda and Aurélie Herbelot. 2016. Formal distributional semantics: Introduction to the special issue. Computational Linguistics, 42(4):619–635. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Gemma+Boleda+and+Aur%C3%A9lie+Herbelot%2E+2016%2E+Formal+distributional+semantics%3A+Introduction+to+the+special+issue%2E+Computational+Linguistics%2C+42%284%29%3A619%E2%80%93635%2E)
12. Johan Bos, Stephen Clark, Mark Steedman, James R Curran, and Julia Hockenmaier. 2004. Wide-coverage semantic representations from a ccg parser. In COLING 2004: Proceedings of the 20th international conference on computational linguistics, pages 1240–1246. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Johan+Bos%2C+Stephen+Clark%2C+Mark+Steedman%2C+James+R+Curran%2C+and+Julia+Hockenmaier%2E+2004%2E+Wide%2Dcoverage+semantic+representations+from+a+ccg+parser%2E+In+COLING+2004%3A+Proceedings+of+the+20th+international+co)
13. Stephen Clark. 2015. Vector space models of lexical meaning. The Handbook of Contemporary semantic theory, pages 493–522. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Stephen+Clark%2E+2015%2E+Vector+space+models+of+lexical+meaning%2E+The+Handbook+of+Contemporary+semantic+theory%2C+pages+493%E2%80%93522%2E)
14. Thomas Graf. 2022. Subregular linguistics: bridging theoretical linguistics and formal grammar. Theoretical Linguistics, 48(3-4):145–184. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Thomas+Graf%2E+2022%2E+Subregular+linguistics%3A+bridging+theoretical+linguistics+and+formal+grammar%2E+Theoretical+Linguistics%2C+48%283%2D4%29%3A145%E2%80%93184%2E)
15. Daoud Clarke. 2009. Context-theoretic semantics for natural language: an overview. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Geometrical Models of Natural Language Semantics, pages 112–119, Athens, Greece. Association for Computational Linguistics. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Daoud+Clarke%2E+2009%2E+Context%2Dtheoretic+semantics+for+natural+language%3A+an+overview%2E+In+Proceedings+of+the+Workshop+on+Geometrical+Models+of+Natural+Language+Semantics%2C+pages+112%E2%80%93119%2C+Athens%2C+Greece%2E+As)
16. Daoud Clarke, David Weir, and Rudi Lutz. 2011. Algebraic approaches to compositional distributional semantics. In Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Computational Semantics (IWCS 2011). [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Daoud+Clarke%2C+David+Weir%2C+and+Rudi+Lutz%2E+2011%2E+Algebraic+approaches+to+compositional+distributional+semantics%2E+In+Proceedings+of+the+Ninth+International+Conference+on+Computational+Semantics+%28IWCS+201)
17. Bob Coecke, Mehrnoosh Sadrzadeh, and Stephen Clark. 2010. Mathematical foundations for a compositional distributional model of meaning. Linguistic Analysis, 36:345–384. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Bob+Coecke%2C+Mehrnoosh+Sadrzadeh%2C+and+Stephen+Clark%2E+2010%2E+Mathematical+foundations+for+a+compositional+distributional+model+of+meaning%2E+Linguistic+Analysis%2C+36%3A345%E2%80%93384%2E)
18. Elizabeth Coppock and Lucas Champollion. 2025. Invitation to formal semantics. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Elizabeth+Coppock+and+Lucas+Champollion%2E+2025%2E+Invitation+to+formal+semantics%2E)
19. Manuscript, Boston University and New York University. Last Updated October 2025. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Manuscript%2C+Boston+University+and+New+York+University%2E+Last+Updated+October+2025%2E)
20. Aniello De Santo. 2025. Capturing online SRC/ORC effort with memory measures from a minimalist parser. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Cognitive Modeling and Computational Linguistics, pages 24–35, Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA. Association for Computational Linguistics. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Aniello+De+Santo%2E+2025%2E+Capturing+online+SRC%2FORC+effort+with+memory+measures+from+a+minimalist+parser%2E+In+Proceedings+of+the+Workshop+on+Cognitive+Modeling+and+Computational+Linguistics%2C+pages+24%E2%80%9335%2C+)
21. Artur d’Avila Garcez and Luis C Lamb. 2023. Neurosymbolic AI: The 3rd wave. Artificial Intelligence Review, 56(11):12387–12406. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Artur+d%E2%80%99Avila+Garcez+and+Luis+C+Lamb%2E+2023%2E+Neurosymbolic+AI%3A+The+3rd+wave%2E+Artificial+Intelligence+Review%2C+56%2811%29%3A12387%E2%80%9312406%2E)
22. Sabrina Gerth and Peter beim Graben. 2009. Unifying syntactic theory and sentence processing difficulty through a connectionist minimalist parser. Cognitive neurodynamics, 3(4):297–316. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Sabrina+Gerth+and+Peter+beim+Graben%2E+2009%2E+Unifying+syntactic+theory+and+sentence+processing+difficulty+through+a+connectionist+minimalist+parser%2E+Cognitive+neurodynamics%2C+3%284%29%3A297%E2%80%93316%2E)
23. Stephen Clark and Stephen Pulman. 2007. Combining symbolic and distributional models of meaning. In Proceedings of AAAI Spring Symposum on Quantum Interaction. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Stephen+Clark+and+Stephen+Pulman%2E+2007%2E+Combining+symbolic+and+distributional+models+of+meaning%2E+In+Proceedings+of+AAAI+Spring+Symposum+on+Quantum+Interaction%2E)
24. Aniello De Santo. 2020. Structure and memory: A computational model of storage, gradience, and priming. Ph.D. thesis, State University of New York at Stony Brook. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Aniello+De+Santo%2E+2020%2E+Structure+and+memory%3A+A+computational+model+of+storage%2C+gradience%2C+and+priming%2E+Ph%2ED%2E+thesis%2C+State+University+of+New+York+at+Stony+Brook%2E)
25. Werner Frey and Hans-Martin Gärtner. On the treatment of scrambling and adjunction in minimalist grammars. In Proceedings of formal grammar, volume 2002, pages 41–52. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Werner+Frey+and+Hans%2DMartin+G%C3%A4rtner%2E+On+the+treatment+of+scrambling+and+adjunction+in+minimalist+grammars%2E+In+Proceedings+of+formal+grammar%2C+volume+2002%2C+pages+41%E2%80%9352%2E)
26. Edward Grefenstette. 2013a. Category-theoretic quantitative compositional distributional models of natural language semantics. Ph.D. thesis, Oxford University, UK. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Edward+Grefenstette%2E+2013a%2E+Category%2Dtheoretic+quantitative+compositional+distributional+models+of+natural+language+semantics%2E+Ph%2ED%2E+thesis%2C+Oxford+University%2C+UK%2E)
27. Edward Grefenstette. 2013b. Towards a formal distributional semantics: Simulating logical calculi with tensors. In Second Joint Conference on Lexical and Computational Semantics (*SEM), Volume 1: Proceedings of the Main Conference and the Shared Task: Semantic Textual Similarity, pages 1–10, Atlanta… [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Edward+Grefenstette%2E+2013b%2E+Towards+a+formal+distributional+semantics%3A+Simulating+logical+calculi+with+tensors%2E+In+Second+Joint+Conference+on+Lexical+and+Computational+Semantics+%28%2ASEM%29%2C+Volume+1%3A+Proc)
28. Edward Grefenstette, Mehrnoosh Sadrzadeh, Stephen Clark, Bob Coecke, and Stephen Pulman. 2011. Concrete sentence spaces for compositional distributional models of meaning. In Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Computational Semantics (IWCS 2011). [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Edward+Grefenstette%2C+Mehrnoosh+Sadrzadeh%2C+Stephen+Clark%2C+Bob+Coecke%2C+and+Stephen+Pulman%2E+2011%2E+Concrete+sentence+spaces+for+compositional+distributional+models+of+meaning%2E+In+Proceedings+of+the+Ninth+)
29. Zellig S Harris. 1954. Distributional structure. Word, 10(2-3):146–162. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Zellig+S+Harris%2E+1954%2E+Distributional+structure%2E+Word%2C+10%282%2D3%29%3A146%E2%80%93162%2E)
30. Irene Heim and Angelika Kratzer. 1998. Semantics in Generative Grammar. Blackwell, Malden, MA. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Irene+Heim+and+Angelika+Kratzer%2E+1998%2E+Semantics+in+Generative+Grammar%2E+Blackwell%2C+Malden%2C+MA%2E)
31. Karl Moritz Hermann and Phil Blunsom. 2013. The role of syntax in vector space models of compositional semantics. In Proceedings of the 51st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 894–904, Sofia, Bulgaria. Association for Computational Linguist… [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Karl+Moritz+Hermann+and+Phil+Blunsom%2E+2013%2E+The+role+of+syntax+in+vector+space+models+of+compositional+semantics%2E+In+Proceedings+of+the+51st+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Association+for+Computational+Linguis)
32. Norbert Hornstein, Jairo Nunes, and Kleanthes K Grohmann. 2005. Understanding minimalism. Cambridge University Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Norbert+Hornstein%2C+Jairo+Nunes%2C+and+Kleanthes+K+Grohmann%2E+2005%2E+Understanding+minimalism%2E+Cambridge+University+Press%2E)
33. Andrea E Martin. 2020. A compositional neural architecture for language. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 32(8):1407–1427. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Andrea+E+Martin%2E+2020%2E+A+compositional+neural+architecture+for+language%2E+Journal+of+Cognitive+Neuroscience%2C+32%288%29%3A1407%E2%80%931427%2E)
34. Tim Hunter. 2007. Deriving syntactic properties of arguments and adjuncts from neo-davidsonian semantics. In Conference on Mathematics of Language, pages 103–116. Springer. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Tim+Hunter%2E+2007%2E+Deriving+syntactic+properties+of+arguments+and+adjuncts+from+neo%2Ddavidsonian+semantics%2E+In+Conference+on+Mathematics+of+Language%2C+pages+103%E2%80%93116%2E+Springer%2E)
35. Tomáš Mikolov, Wen-tau Yih, and Geoffrey Zweig. 2013. Linguistic regularities in continuous space word representations. In Proceedings of the 2013 conference of the north american chapter of the association for computational linguistics: Human language technologies, pages 746–751. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Tom%C3%A1%C5%A1+Mikolov%2C+Wen%2Dtau+Yih%2C+and+Geoffrey+Zweig%2E+2013%2E+Linguistic+regularities+in+continuous+space+word+representations%2E+In+Proceedings+of+the+2013+conference+of+the+north+american+chapter+of+the+assoc) [our card](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/mikolov-2013-linguistic-regularities-continuous-space-word/)
36. Shinnosuke Isono. 2024. Category locality theory: A unified account of locality effects in sentence comprehension. Cognition, 247:105766. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Shinnosuke+Isono%2E+2024%2E+Category+locality+theory%3A+A+unified+account+of+locality+effects+in+sentence+comprehension%2E+Cognition%2C+247%3A105766%2E)
37. Jungo Kasai, Robert Frank, R. Thomas McCoy, Owen Rambow, and Alexis Nasr. 2017. TAG parsing with neural networks and vector representations of supertags. In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 1712–1722, Copenhagen, Denmark. Association for C… [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Jungo+Kasai%2C+Robert+Frank%2C+R%2E+Thomas+McCoy%2C+Owen+Rambow%2C+and+Alexis+Nasr%2E+2017%2E+TAG+parsing+with+neural+networks+and+vector+representations+of+supertags%2E+In+Proceedings+of+the+2017+Conference+on+Empir)
38. Gregory M. Kobele. 2006. Generating copies: An investigation into structural identity in language and grammar. Ph.D. thesis, University of California, Los Angeles. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Gregory+M%2E+Kobele%2E+2006%2E+Generating+copies%3A+An+investigation+into+structural+identity+in+language+and+grammar%2E+Ph%2ED%2E+thesis%2C+University+of+California%2C+Los+Angeles%2E)
39. Gregory M. Kobele. 2012. Importing montagovian dynamics into minimalism. In Logical Aspects of Computational Linguistics - 7th International Conference, LACL 2012, Nantes, France, July 2-4, 2012. Proceedings, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 103–118. Springer. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Gregory+M%2E+Kobele%2E+2012%2E+Importing+montagovian+dynamics+into+minimalism%2E+In+Logical+Aspects+of+Computational+Linguistics+%2D+7th+International+Conference%2C+LACL+2012%2C+Nantes%2C+France%2C+July+2%2D4%2C+2012%2E+Proc)
40. Jeff Mitchell and Mirella Lapata. 2008. Vector-based models of semantic composition. In Proceedings of ACL-08: HLT, pages 236–244, Columbus, Ohio. Association for Computational Linguistics. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Jeff+Mitchell+and+Mirella+Lapata%2E+2008%2E+Vector%2Dbased+models+of+semantic+composition%2E+In+Proceedings+of+ACL%2D08%3A+HLT%2C+pages+236%E2%80%93244%2C+Columbus%2C+Ohio%2E+Association+for+Computational+Linguistics%2E)
41. Richard Montague. 1970. English as a formal language. In B. Visentini et al, editor, Linguaggi nella Società e nella Tecnica, pages 188–221. Milan: Edizioni di Communita. Reprinted in Thomason (ed.) 1974, pp. 188–221. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Richard+Montague%2E+1970%2E+English+as+a+formal+language%2E+In+B%2E+Visentini+et+al%2C+editor%2C+Linguaggi+nella+Societ%C3%A0+e+nella+Tecnica%2C+pages+188%E2%80%93221%2E+Milan%3A+Edizioni+di+Communita%2E+Reprinted+in+Thomason+%28ed%2E%29+1)
42. Satoru Ozaki, Aniello De Santo, Tal Linzen, and Brian Dillon. 2024. CCG parsing effort and surprisal jointly predict RT but underpredict gardenpath effects. In Society for Computation in Linguistics, volume 7, pages 362–364. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Satoru+Ozaki%2C+Aniello+De+Santo%2C+Tal+Linzen%2C+and+Brian+Dillon%2E+2024%2E+CCG+parsing+effort+and+surprisal+jointly+predict+RT+but+underpredict+gardenpath+effects%2E+In+Society+for+Computation+in+Linguistics%2C+)
43. Jakob Prange, Nathan Schneider, and Vivek Srikumar. 2021. Supertagging the long tail with tree-structured decoding of complex categories. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 9:243–260. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Jakob+Prange%2C+Nathan+Schneider%2C+and+Vivek+Srikumar%2E+2021%2E+Supertagging+the+long+tail+with+tree%2Dstructured+decoding+of+complex+categories%2E+Transactions+of+the+Association+for+Computational+Linguistics%2C)
44. Gregory M. Kobele, Sabrina Gerth, and John Hale. 2012. Memory resource allocation in top-down minimalist parsing. In Formal Grammar - 17th and 18th International Conferences, FG 2012, Opole, Poland, August 2012, Revised Selected Papers, FG 2013, Düsseldorf, Germany, August 2013. Proceedings, Lecture… [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Gregory+M%2E+Kobele%2C+Sabrina+Gerth%2C+and+John+Hale%2E+2012%2E+Memory+resource+allocation+in+top%2Ddown+minimalist+parsing%2E+In+Formal+Grammar+%2D+17th+and+18th+International+Conferences%2C+FG+2012%2C+Opole%2C+Poland%2C+A)
45. Daniel Quigley. 2025. A vector logic for extensional formal semantics. Journal of Logic, Language and Information, pages 557–599. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Daniel+Quigley%2E+2025%2E+A+vector+logic+for+extensional+formal+semantics%2E+Journal+of+Logic%2C+Language+and+Information%2C+pages+557%E2%80%93599%2E)
46. Tamara G Kolda and Brett W Bader. 2009. Tensor decompositions and applications. SIAM review, 51(3):455–500. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Tamara+G+Kolda+and+Brett+W+Bader%2E+2009%2E+Tensor+decompositions+and+applications%2E+SIAM+review%2C+51%283%29%3A455%E2%80%93500%2E)
47. Paul Smolensky. 1990. Tensor product variable binding and the representation of symbolic structures in connectionist systems. Artificial intelligence, 46(1-2):159–216. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Paul+Smolensky%2E+1990%2E+Tensor+product+variable+binding+and+the+representation+of+symbolic+structures+in+connectionist+systems%2E+Artificial+intelligence%2C+46%281%2D2%29%3A159%E2%80%93216%2E)
48. Hilda Koopman and Dominique Sportiche. 1991. The position of subjects. Lingua, 85(2-3):211–258. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Hilda+Koopman+and+Dominique+Sportiche%2E+1991%2E+The+position+of+subjects%2E+Lingua%2C+85%282%2D3%29%3A211%E2%80%93258%2E)
49. Paul Smolensky. 2012. Symbolic functions from neural computation. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 370(1971):3543–3569. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Paul+Smolensky%2E+2012%2E+Symbolic+functions+from+neural+computation%2E+Philosophical+Transactions+of+the+Royal+Society+A%3A+Mathematical%2C+Physical+and+Engineering+Sciences%2C+370%281971%29%3A3543%E2%80%933569%2E)
50. Joachim Lambek. 1958. The mathematics of sentence structure. The American Mathematical Monthly, 65(3):189–224. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Joachim+Lambek%2E+1958%2E+The+mathematics+of+sentence+structure%2E+The+American+Mathematical+Monthly%2C+65%283%29%3A189%E2%80%93224%2E)
51. Garrett Smith and Shravan Vasishth. 2020. A principled approach to feature selection in models of sentence processing. Cognitive science, 44(12):e12918. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Garrett+Smith+and+Shravan+Vasishth%2E+2020%2E+A+principled+approach+to+feature+selection+in+models+of+sentence+processing%2E+Cognitive+science%2C+44%2812%29%3Ae12918%2E)
52. Paul Smolensky and Géraldine Legendre. 2006. The harmonic mind: From neural computation to optimality-theoretic grammar (Cognitive architecture), Vol. 1. MIT Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Paul+Smolensky+and+G%C3%A9raldine+Legendre%2E+2006%2E+The+harmonic+mind%3A+From+neural+computation+to+optimality%2Dtheoretic+grammar+%28Cognitive+architecture%29%2C+Vol%2E+1%2E+MIT+Press%2E)
53. Serge Lang. 2002. The tensor product. In Algebra, chapter XVI, pages 601–640. Springer New York, New York, NY. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Serge+Lang%2E+2002%2E+The+tensor+product%2E+In+Algebra%2C+chapter+XVI%2C+pages+601%E2%80%93640%2E+Springer+New+York%2C+New+York%2C+NY%2E)
54. Alessandro Lenci. 2018. Distributional models of word meaning. Annual review of Linguistics, 4:151–171. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Alessandro+Lenci%2E+2018%2E+Distributional+models+of+word+meaning%2E+Annual+review+of+Linguistics%2C+4%3A151%E2%80%93171%2E)
55. Jean Maillard, Stephen Clark, and Edward Grefenstette. 2014. A type-driven tensor-based semantics for CCG. In Proceedings of the EACL 2014 Workshop on Type Theory and Natural Language Semantics (TTNLS), pages 46–54, Gothenburg, Sweden. Association for Computational Linguistics. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Jean+Maillard%2C+Stephen+Clark%2C+and+Edward+Grefenstette%2E+2014%2E+A+type%2Ddriven+tensor%2Dbased+semantics+for+CCG%2E+In+Proceedings+of+the+EACL+2014+Workshop+on+Type+Theory+and+Natural+Language+Semantics+%28TTNLS)
56. Paul Smolensky, Géraldine Legendre, and Yoshiro Miyata. 1993. Integrating connectionist and symbolic computation for the theory of language. Current Science, pages 381–391. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Paul+Smolensky%2C+G%C3%A9raldine+Legendre%2C+and+Yoshiro+Miyata%2E+1993%2E+Integrating+connectionist+and+symbolic+computation+for+the+theory+of+language%2E+Current+Science%2C+pages+381%E2%80%93391%2E)
57. Paul Smolensky, Richard McCoy, Roland Fernandez, Matthew Goldrick, and Jianfeng Gao. 2022. Neurocompositional computing: From the central paradox of cognition to a new generation of ai systems. AI Magazine, 43(3):308–322. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Paul+Smolensky%2C+Richard+McCoy%2C+Roland+Fernandez%2C+Matthew+Goldrick%2C+and+Jianfeng+Gao%2E+2022%2E+Neurocompositional+computing%3A+From+the+central+paradox+of+cognition+to+a+new+generation+of+ai+systems%2E+AI+Mag)
58. Richard Socher, Chris Biemann, and Rainer Osswald. 2007. Combining contexts in lexicon learning for semantic parsing. In Proceedings of the 16th Nordic Conference of Computational Linguistics (NODALIDA 2007), pages 175–182, Tartu, Estonia. University of Tartu, Estonia. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Richard+Socher%2C+Chris+Biemann%2C+and+Rainer+Osswald%2E+2007%2E+Combining+contexts+in+lexicon+learning+for+semantic+parsing%2E+In+Proceedings+of+the+16th+Nordic+Conference+of+Computational+Linguistics+%28NODALID)
59. Richard Socher, Brody Huval, Christopher D. Manning, and Andrew Y. Ng. 2012. Semantic compositionality through recursive matrix-vector spaces. In Proceedings of the 2012 Joint Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and Computational Natural Language Learning, pages 1201–1211,… [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Richard+Socher%2C+Brody+Huval%2C+Christopher+D%2E+Manning%2C+and+Andrew+Y%2E+Ng%2E+2012%2E+Semantic+compositionality+through+recursive+matrix%2Dvector+spaces%2E+In+Proceedings+of+the+2012+Joint+Conference+on+Empirical+) [our card](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/socher-2012-semantic-compositionality-through-recursive-matrix/)
60. John Torr, Miloš Stanojević, Mark Steedman, and Shay B Cohen. 2019. Wide-coverage neural a* parsing for minimalist grammars. In Proceedings of the 57th annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics, pages 2486–2505. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=John+Torr%2C+Milo%C5%A1+Stanojevic%CC%81%2C+Mark+Steedman%2C+and+Shay+B+Cohen%2E+2019%2E+Wide%2Dcoverage+neural+a%2A+parsing+for+minimalist+grammars%2E+In+Proceedings+of+the+57th+annual+meeting+of+the+association+for+computati)
61. Sandra Villata and Whitney Tabor. 2022. A self-organized sentence processing theory of gradience: The case of islands. Cognition, 222:104943. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Sandra+Villata+and+Whitney+Tabor%2E+2022%2E+A+self%2Dorganized+sentence+processing+theory+of+gradience%3A+The+case+of+islands%2E+Cognition%2C+222%3A104943%2E)
62. Ryosuke Yamaki, Tadahiro Taniguchi, and Daichi Mochihashi. 2023. Holographic ccg parsing. In Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 262–276. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Ryosuke+Yamaki%2C+Tadahiro+Taniguchi%2C+and+Daichi+Mochihashi%2E+2023%2E+Holographic+ccg+parsing%2E+In+Proceedings+of+the+61st+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Association+for+Computational+Linguistics+%28Volume+1%3A+Long+Pap)
63. Paul Soulos. 2025. Unifying Neural and Symbolic Computation for Compositional Generalization: Representation and Processing. Ph.D. thesis, The Johns Hopkins University. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Paul+Soulos%2E+2025%2E+Unifying+Neural+and+Symbolic+Computation+for+Compositional+Generalization%3A+Representation+and+Processing%2E+Ph%2ED%2E+thesis%2C+The+Johns+Hopkins+University%2E)
64. Edward Stabler. 1996. Derivational minimalism. In International conference on logical aspects of computational linguistics, pages 68–95. Springer. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Edward+Stabler%2E+1996%2E+Derivational+minimalism%2E+In+International+conference+on+logical+aspects+of+computational+linguistics%2C+pages+68%E2%80%9395%2E+Springer%2E)
65. Edward P Stabler. 2013. Two models of minimalist, incremental syntactic analysis. Topics in cognitive science, 5(3):611–633. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Edward+P+Stabler%2E+2013%2E+Two+models+of+minimalist%2C+incremental+syntactic+analysis%2E+Topics+in+cognitive+science%2C+5%283%29%3A611%E2%80%93633%2E)
66. Miloš Stanojević, Jonathan R Brennan, Donald Dunagan, Mark Steedman, and John T Hale. 2023. Modeling structure-building in the brain with ccg parsing and large language models. Cognitive science, 47(7):e13312. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Milo%C5%A1+Stanojevic%CC%81%2C+Jonathan+R+Brennan%2C+Donald+Dunagan%2C+Mark+Steedman%2C+and+John+T+Hale%2E+2023%2E+Modeling+structure%2Dbuilding+in+the+brain+with+ccg+parsing+and+large+language+models%2E+Cognitive+science%2C+47%28)
67. Mark Steedman. 2001. The syntactic process. MIT press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Mark+Steedman%2E+2001%2E+The+syntactic+process%2E+MIT+press%2E)
68. Mark Steedman and Jason Baldridge. 2011. Combinatory categorial grammar. In Robert D. Borsley and Kersti Börjars, editors, Non-Transformational Syntax, chapter 5, pages 181–224. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Mark+Steedman+and+Jason+Baldridge%2E+2011%2E+Combinatory+categorial+grammar%2E+In+Robert+D%2E+Borsley+and+Kersti+B%C3%B6rjars%2C+editors%2C+Non%2DTransformational+Syntax%2C+chapter+5%2C+pages+181%E2%80%93224%2E+John+Wiley+%26+Sons%2C+Ltd)
69. Whitney Tabor. 2009. A dynamical systems perspective on the relationship between symbolic and non-symbolic computation. Cognitive neurodynamics, 3(4):415–427. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Whitney+Tabor%2E+2009%2E+A+dynamical+systems+perspective+on+the+relationship+between+symbolic+and+non%2Dsymbolic+computation%2E+Cognitive+neurodynamics%2C+3%284%29%3A415%E2%80%93427%2E)
70. Yu Tomita. 2016. Solving event quantification and free variable problems in semantics for minimalist grammars. In Proceedings of the 30th Pacific Asia Conference on Language, Information and Computation: Oral Papers, pages 219–227. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Yu+Tomita%2E+2016%2E+Solving+event+quantification+and+free+variable+problems+in+semantics+for+minimalist+grammars%2E+In+Proceedings+of+the+30th+Pacific+Asia+Conference+on+Language%2C+Information+and+Computati)
71. John Torr. 2017. Autobank: a semi-automatic annotation tool for developing deep minimalist grammar treebanks. In Proceedings of the Software Demonstrations of the 15th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 81–86. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=John+Torr%2E+2017%2E+Autobank%3A+a+semi%2Dautomatic+annotation+tool+for+developing+deep+minimalist+grammar+treebanks%2E+In+Proceedings+of+the+Software+Demonstrations+of+the+15th+Conference+of+the+European+Chapt)
72. John Torr. 2018. Constraining mgbank: Agreement, l-selection and supertagging in minimalist grammars. In Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 590–600. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=John+Torr%2E+2018%2E+Constraining+mgbank%3A+Agreement%2C+l%2Dselection+and+supertagging+in+minimalist+grammars%2E+In+Proceedings+of+the+56th+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Association+for+Computational+Linguistics+%28Volume)