Linguistics 5430 Spring 2007 Study Sheet Saeed, Chapter 10 Formal Semantics The main point.

In this chapter, we continue iscussion o! logicall" oriente approaches to language meaning #egun in chapter 4. In these approaches, sentences are i enti!ie as #eing true or !alse epen ing upon whether the" accuratel" re!lect situations out in the worl . $his chapter enriches our un erstan ing o! logicall" oriente semantics #" intro ucing us to predicate logic, quantifiers, models, an set theory. %!ter rea ing the chapter, tr" to answer the &uestions #elow. '. List the three stages o! semantic anal"sis that !ormal semantics in(ol(es. 2. )ow oes pre icate logic i!!er !rom propositional logic *which we stu ie in +hapter 4, with respect to the wa" in which sentences are represente 3. .hat is an argument in the sense o! pre icate logic an arguments represente how are

4. /oes pre icate logic appear to concern itsel! with the 0in s o! semantic roles that we loo0e at in +hapter 15. /oes pre icate logic allow us to represent the i!!erence #etween in!ormation that is asserte an in!ormation that is presuppose - 2i(e a speci!ic e3ample to illustrate "our answer. 1. .hat 0in s o! statements can we represent using &uanti!iers that we coul n4t represent i! we i n4t ha(e &uanti!iers7. .hat two &uanti!iers are use in pre icate logic an correspon to a particular e3pression in 5nglish6. .hat is the range o! a &uanti!ier, an how is it represente 7. +an a single !ormula o! pre icate logic contain #oth a constant an a (aria#le- Illustrate "our answer with a sentence an its pre icate8logic representation. oes each

2 '0. 9ecall !rom +hapter 2 that sentences containing in e!inite noun phrases ma" #e am#iguous #etween a specific rea ing an a nonspecific rea ing, as in the !ollowing e3ample: Im looking for a reasonably priced bottle of French champagne. +oul #oth rea ings o! the a#o(e sentence #e escri#e using e3istential &uanti!ication- 53plain wh" or wh" not. ''. For the !ollowing am#iguous sentence, escri#e the two rea ings in terms o! istinct scopes o! the e3istential an uni(ersal &uanti!iers: Everyone in the room speaks two languages. '2. It is o!ten sai that the !ollowing sentence is unam#iguous:

Two languages are spoken by everyone in the room. $ell which o! the two rea ings "ou ga(e in *'', this sentence woul ha(e. ha(e to

'3. /escri#e the am#iguit" o! the !ollowing sentence in terms o! a scope am#iguit". $ell what two elements o! logical representation are in(ol(e in this am#iguit": The editor didnt find many mistakes. '4. 2i(e a pre icate8logic representation !or the !ollowing sentence:

That dog doesnt like anyone. ;ight there #e two e&ui(alent wa"s to represent this sentence, using two i!!erent &uanti!iers'5. Saee iscusse three t"pes o! elements that must #e assigne interpretations * enotations, in pre icate logic. $ell what the" are an escri#e what each enotes. '1. .hat is the i!!erence #etween a set o! constants that is e3presse in wa(" #rac0ets, as in <3,",=>, an one that is e3presse in angle #rac0ets, as in ?3,",=@'7. .hat is the i!!erence #etween a domain an a model-

3 '6. For each o! the three elements that must #e assigne interpretations #" !unction, tell what (alues the enotation8assignment !unction will return: Sentences: In i(i uals: Are icates:

'7. $a0e an e3ample o! a !ormula containing a pre icate an a constant !rom the mo el escri#e on pp. 3048305. 53plain how to e(aluate its truth or !alsit" in terms o! sets. 20. %gain using the mo el escri#e on pp. 3048305, come up with two !ormulas that woul #e true using e3istential &uanti!ication in one an uni(ersal &uanti!ication in the other. 2'. In chapter 3, we were intro uce to graded antonyms . Fin a pair o! gra e anton"ms an show that it either oes or oes not o#e" the meaning postulate gi(en in *'0.57,. 22. .hat are two reasons that generali=e &uanti!ier theor" is an impro(ement o(er a theor" which Bust allows !or two 0in s o! &uanti!iers, uni(ersal an e3istential23. 53plain the i!!erence #etween the pre icate logic !ormula in *'0.73, an generali=e &uanti!ier !ormula in *'0.74, in terms o! the set8inclusion relationship. 24. $he noun phrase some dogs has #oth a strong quantifier rea ing an a weak quantifier rea ing. Cn which rea ing can some sai to #e proportional- 53plain. Cn which rea ing can it #e sai to #e s"mmetric53plain. 25. /iscuss which rea ing o! some dogs, strong or wea0, is re&uire each conte3t: Some dogs are Siberian Huskies. Some dogs are in the garden. )elp!ul hint: Dstrong4 some recei(es a strong accent or stress, while Dwea04 some oes not. 21. .hat is the relationship #etween entailment an negative polarity items, accor ing to La usawlicensing o! #"

4 27. 53plain #rie!l" how one can terms o! possible worlds. escri#e possibility an necessity in

26. In a logical mo el o! tense an aspect calle tense logic, propositions are treate as pre icates an times as arguments o! those pre icates. $his means that an assertion li0e Shirley preferred white wine is represente in the !ollowing wa": Shirley prefers white wine *t, E t? now $his !ormula sa"s that the state o! Shirle"4s pre!erring white wine is a propert" o! a time inter(al prior to now. $ense logic captures the i!!erence #etween states an e(ents #" means o! something calle the subinterval property . $he sentence Shirley preferred white wine has the su#inter(al propert" #ecause i! Shirle" pre!erre white wine at an inter(al t *sa", the perio o! time uring which I 0new her, she also pre!erre white wine at all su#portions o! that inter(al. )ow might we use the su#inter(al propert" to capture the i!!erence #etween e(ents an states, as we un erstan that i!!erence !rom +hapter 527. )ow is em#e ing use in /9$ representations to ensure that some re!erents can #e re!erre #ac0 to #" anaphors an some cannot- 53plain, using at least two e3amples.