IntroSem2008 03

Introduction to Semantics
Session 3
Meaning Derivations +
-Notation
Cornelia Endriss
Cognitive Science Program
University of Osnabrck
cendriss@uos.de
27.05.2008 Slides based on semantics textbook from I. Heim & A. Kratzer
and lecture notes from M. Krifka
2
1. Homework from last week
2. Deriving Meanings Compositionally
Compositionality
Intension vs. extension
A small fragment
3. Functions
Intensional vs. extensional functions
The formal concept of functions
-notation
Function composition
Outline for Today
3
Homework
Homework Solutions
4
Homework
Please write your
group number and
your names on your
solutions!
5 27.05.2008 Slides based on semantics textbook fromI. Heim & A. Kratzer
and lecture notes fromM. Krifka
5
Solutions to Homework
2. Complete the exercise on set theory, p. 9f. of H&Ks textbook.
i. {a} = {b}
yes, but only if a = b
ii. {x : x = a} = {a}
yes
the set of all objects that are a contains exactly one object,
namely a itself
iii. {x : x is green} = {y : y is green}
yes
both descriptions stand for the set of all objects that are green
iv. {x : x likes a} = {y : y likes b}
yes, but only if a = b
the set of all objects that like a is identical to the set of all objects
that like b only if a = b
6
v. {x: x A} = A
yes
the set of objects that are elements of the set A is just A
vi. {x : x {y: y B}} = B
yes
from inside out: {y : y B} is just another way to describe the set
B see (v)! Hence we can simplify to {x : x B}. But again this is
just another way to describe the set B see (v) again!
vii. {x : {y : y likes x} = } = {x : {x : x likes x} = }
set of all objects
that like x
set of all objects that are not
liked by anyone/anything
set of all objects
that like themselves
all objects, if no object likes itself;
, if some object likes itself
7
(A) {x : {y : y likes x} = } = {x : {x : x likes x} = }
= all objects, if no object is
all objects if no object likes itself
(B) {x : {y : y likes x} = } = {x : {x : x likes x} = }
= , if every object is liked
by someone/something
if some object likes itself
Correct answer: yes, iff (A) no object is liked by any other object or (B) if
every object is liked by some other object and some object likes itself
8
3. Compositionality & Problems.
(See slides p. 56 60 from last session)
Natural language is productive, i.e. one can express infinitely
many new thoughts/meanings by sentences which recombine
finitely many words/morphems.
Without the PoC it would remain a mystery how we are able to
understand previously unheard sentences; an infinite language
without PoC would not be learnable.
Problems for the PoC: cases where the meaning of a complex
expression is not determined by the meanings of its parts.
Case in point: idioms (to hit the nail on the head, to kick the bucket)
Could be reconciled with PoC in the form of complex lexical
entries.
9
Note: the PoC is meant to apply to the literal meaning, not to
the communicative meaning!
Hence the irony of Great weather! when its pouring is not a
problem for the PoC. The PoC ensures that we can derive the
literal meaning of the utterance by combination the meanings
of great and weather.
This literal meaning is then pragmatically enriched/changed
into the opposite communicative meaning which results in the
irony of the utterance.
Another non-problematic case:
structural ambiguity (e.g. PP-attachment)
If the syntactic way of combining elements changes, so may the
meaning! This is in accordance with the PoC.
10
4. Is Paul did not invite Mary to his party a presupposition of Paul
regrets that he did not invite Mary to his party ?
Tests for Presuppositions:
Negation:
Paul does not regret that he did not invite Mary to his party.
Weakening by modal:
Perhaps Paul regrets that he did not invite Mary to his party.
Question formation:
Does Paul regret that he did not invite Mary to his party?
In all three cases it is presupposed/taken for granted that Paul did
not invite Mary to his party hence this is a presupposition of the
initial sentence.
11
5. Implicature of Most children like ice cream.
Informativity w.r.t. alternatives:
(1) All children like ice cream is more informative than
(2) Most children like ice cream, which is more informative than
(3) Some children like ice cream.
Gricean Maxim of
Quantity: Be as informative as you can!
Quality: Say only what you think is true!
If a speaker who utters (2) obeys these maxims, (2) is the most
informative utterance among the alternatives that she can truthfully
make.
Hence she does not believe in the truth of any more informative one
such as (1). If she is an expert in ice cream matters, he may even know
that (1) is false.
Therefore she implicates by uttering (2): Not all children like ice cream.
12
Deriving Meanings
Compositionally
Deriving Meanings
Compositionally
13
Wittgenstein
Ludwig Wittgenstein: Einen Satz verstehen heit, wissen
was der Fall ist, wenn er wahr ist. (Man kann ihn also
verstehen, ohne zu wissen, ob er wahr ist.)
`To understand a sentence means to knowwhat is the case
if it is true. (You can hence understand it without knowing
whether it is true.)
14
Basic idea: the meaning of a complex expression, like
Cassandra limps, should be computable from the meanings
of the parts, here Cassandra and limps.
This is called the principle of compositionality. It was first
proposed, although in a rather implicit way, by Gottlob
Frege, and is also known as Fregean Principle.
Principle of Compositionality
15
Deriving Meanings
Compositionally
Intension and
Extension
16
We know that combining the meaning of limps with the
meaning of Cassandra should give us the meaning of
Cassandra limps, i.e. the situations/worlds in which Cassandra
actually limps.
(1) a. Cassandra limps =
all the possible worlds in which Cassandra limps.
b. Cassandra =
the horse
c. limps =
something that assigns every entity x to the possible
worlds in which x limps (a function).
Meanings on Subsentence Level
17
for names: Individuals
for sentences: Truth or Falsity
for predicates Functions from individuals into
(e.g. intransitive verbs): truth values
Obviously, the Wittgensteinian idea that understanding a sentence
means to know the truth conditions makes a lot more sense.
However, we can make the truth value of a sentence dependent on
the situation in which it is to be evaluated.
The sentence Cassandra limps is true iff (= if, and only if)
Cassandra limps in the situation under discussion.
Fregean Denotations
18
Hence, a sentence denotes its truth value dependent
on an evaluation situation/world.
(2) a. Cassandra limps
s
=
true iff Cassandra limps in s;
false otherwise.
b. Cassandra =
the horse
c. limps
s
=
something that assigns every entity x to true if
x limps in s and to false if x does not limp in s.
Parameterized Truth Values
For convenience, we
sometimes omit the
situation parameter
19
The truth value of a sentence in a certain situation/world is
also referred to as the sentences extension (= reference or
Freges Bedeutung).
The parameterized truth value, i.e. the truth conditions of a
sentence, or the set of situations/worlds where it is true is
called the intension (= meaning or Freges Sinn).
Intension vs. Extension of Sentences
20
We have the same distinction with individuals and individual
concepts.
(3) a. The Empress of Austria in 1868
b. The Queen of Hungary in 1868
The Empress of Austria in 1968:
Extension: Intension: the individual concept of the
Empress of Austria in 1868 with all her
properties, rights, and duties.
The Queen of Hungary in 1868:
Extension: Intension: the individual concept of the
Queen of Hungary in 1868 with all her
properties, rights, and duties.
Intension vs. Extension with
Individuals
21
(4) Wenn du die Kaiserin von sterreich sehen willst, dann
musst du nach Ungarn fahren.
(If you want to see the Empress of Austria, you have to travel to
Hungary.)
(5) Die Kaiserin von sterreich hatte ein Kind.
(The Empress of Austria had one child.)
Extension of an individual: the individuals reference in the
situation/world under discussion.
Intension of an individual: the individual concept, usually
formalized as the individuals reference dependent on the
evaluation situation/world.
Intension vs. Extension with
Individuals
#die Knigin von Ungarn
Die Knigin von Ungarn
22
Freges example: (6) Der Morgenstern ist der Abendstern.
(The morning star is the evening star.)
der Morgenstern (the morning star):
Extension: Venus Intension: concept of a star that shines
brightly in the morning.
der Abendstern (the evening star):
Extension: Venus Intension: concept of a star that shines
brightly in the evening.
Hence, the extensions of the two expressions are the same, the
intensions are not.
Also explains why (6) is contingent, but (7) is not. It is a
tautology (although we simply exchanged co-referent terms).
(7) Venus ist Venus.
(Venus is Venus.)
Frege: Intension vs. Extension
Cf. (8) a. Venus is a planet.
b. The morning star is a planet.
23
Deriving Meanings
Compositionally
Fragments of English
24
Let us stay within an extensional framework for the moment
(to be revised later on).
(2) a. Cassandra limps =
true iff Cassandra limps (in the actual world).
b. Cassandra =
the horse
c. limps =
a function that assigns every entity x to true if
x limps in the actual world and to false if x does not
limp in in the actual world.
The starting point
25
S
VP NP
Cassandra limps
=
1 iff Cassandra limps
V N
How to derive the meaning of Cassandra limps?
How can we derive this result if we obey the principle of
compositionality?
How to Derive Meanings?
26
(A) Ontology
- individuals in the domain D: D = the set of actual individuals
- the truth values, True and False: {0,1}
- functions from D to {0,1}
(B ) Lexicon
Cassandra = Cassandra =
Ann = Ann
Jan = Jan
limps = f : D {0,1} for all xD, f(x)=1 iff x limps

works = f : D {0,1} for all xD, f(x)=1 iff x works
smokes = f : D {0,1} for all xD, f(x)=1 iff x smokes
Fragment 1
Object language
Meta language
Denotation
27
(C) Rules
S
(S1) If has the form , then = ()

NP
(S2) If has the form , then =
VP
N
V
Fragment 1
28
S
VP
limps
V
NP
Cassandra
N
This tree is matched by Rule(S1):
S

=
NP
Cassandra
N
VP
limps
V
=
=
Step 1
29
=
= ()
apply Rule (S1):
Step 2
S
VP
limps
V
NP
Cassandra
N
NP
N
Cassandra
VP
limps
V
30
=
=
apply Rule (S3):
V
Step 3
VP
limps
V
limps
31
=
substitute in previous result:
Step 4
S
VP
limps
V
NP
Cassandra
N
V
limps
NP
N
Cassandra
32
=
=
apply Rule (S5):
Step 5
V
limps
limps
33
=
substitute in previous result:
Step 6
S
VP
limps
V
NP
Cassandra
N
limps
NP
N
Cassandra
34
=
same procedure for the NP yields:
Step 7
S
VP
limps
V
NP
Cassandra
N
limps Cassandra
35
=
f : D {0,1} for all xD,
f(x)=1 iff x limps
( )
= 1 iff Cassandra limps.
This shows: Our Fregean semantics gives us plausible truth
conditions for sentences!
substitute lexical definitions:
limps = f : D {0,1} for all xD, f(x)=1 iff x limps
Cassandra = Cassandra =
Step 8 & 9
S
VP
limps
V
NP
Cassandra
N
limps Cassandra =
36
Functions
Intension and
Extension
of Functions
37
as rules:
limps = f : D {0,1}
for all x D, f(x) = 1 iff x limps
as tables of mappings:
1
limps = Hannes 0
Bohemia 1
intensional view
of functions
extensional view
of functions
The same table of mappings can be defined by different rules.
Recall:
The same referent (Sissi) may be given by expressions that have a
different intension (Empress of Austria, Queen of Hungary).
{0,1} are the extension of a sentence; truth conditions are the intension
of a sentence.
Extension + Intension of Functions
38
=
( )
= 1
This shows: An extensional treatment of functions also yields
an extensional semantics for sentences (= a truth value).
Extensional View of Functions
S
VP
limps
V
NP
Cassandra
N
1
Hannes 0
Bohemia 1
39
Functions
The Formal Concept
of Functions
40
Functions are right-unique relations, i.e. right-unique
pairings between objects.
A relation R is right-unique iff the following holds:
(9) For every x, y, z,
if <x, y> R and <x, z> R, then y = z.
We can write <x, y> R or y = R(x).
We say that x is the argument, and y is the value. We also
say that R is applied to x, and we say that R maps x to y.
Function Definition
41
Another important pair of notions is the domain and the
range of a function f:
(10) a. The domain of a function f, DOM(f)
= {x | there is a y such that <x, y> f}
b. The range of a function f, RNG(f)
= {y | there is a x such that <x, y> f}
That is, the domain of f are the possible arguments of f, and
the range of f are the possible values of f.
Function Definition
42
Examples of Functions
a
b
c
d
1
2
3
4
Function from
A onto/into B
Function fromA
into B
Partial function
fromA into B
a
b
c
d
a
b
c
d
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
a 1
b 2
c 3
d 4
a 1
b 2
c 3
d 3
a 1
b 2
c 3
43
The relation father pairs every person x with xs father.
Every person has exactly one father. Hence this relation is
right-unique, a function.
The domain of father is the set of persons (or men), and the
range of father is the set of fathers.
Cf. the son-relation, which is certainly not right-unique.
We can say that the father of AchimPetry IS Wolfgang
Petry. father( ) =
But we cannot say that the son of Wolfgang Petry IS Achim
Petryafter all, Wolle could have more than one son.
A Linguistic Example
44
A Linguistic Example
AchimPetry Wolle Petry
Kiefer Sutherland Donald Sutherland
Prince Harry Prince Charles
Prince William Prince Charles
father =
father = f: persons persons,
x the father of x.
Definition by Enumeration of Argument Value Pairs:
Definition by Description:
45
Functions
Lambda-Notation
46
The lambda calculus is a very perspicuous way to work
with functions that we will use through-out this course.
Consider the following function descriptions:
father : f: persons persons,
x the father of x
successor s: natural numbers natural numbers,
x x + 1
square q: natural numbers natural numbers,
x x
2
E.g. f(Achim Petry) = Wolfgang Petry; s(4) = 5; q(7) = 49
Function Definitions so far
47
Another familiar notation for functions
(11) a. g(x) = x
2
+ x + 1
b. g(2) = 7
We have defined the functions like f, s, q, g.
Whenever we use f and s, for example in expressions like
f(Achim Petry) or g(2), we have to look up how these functions
were defined.
The lambda notation gives us a way to name functions in a way
that makes it immediately clear how they are defined.
(12) f: x[the father of x]
s: x[x+1]
q: x[x
2
]
g: x[x
2
+ x + 1]
Function Definition in -notation
48
We call such expressions lambda terms.
The structure of lambda terms is as follows:
(13) variable [description of value]
This stands for the function that maps the things that variable
can possibly stand for to the value, as described in the so-called
body of the lambda term.
The formation of a lambda term from a description containing a
variable, like mother of x, or x sleeps, or x2 + x + 1, is
called (lambda) abstraction.
Functions in lambda notation wear their definition on their
sleeves.
-Abstraction
49
This makes it possible to give the value of the function applied to
an argument by simply replacing the lambda variable by that
argument. This is called (lambda) conversion or reduction:
(14) a. x[father of x](AchimPetry) b. x[x
2
+ x + 1](3)
= father of Achim Petry = 3
2
+ 3 + 1
= Wolfgang Petry = 9 + 3 + 1
= 13
-Conversion
50
Lambda notation, as developed so far, is less flexible than some
other notations:
(15) a. g: N N N, N, x x
2
+ x + 1
b. g: E E N, N, x x
2
+ x + 1
(15a) is a function from natural numbers to natural numbers,
(15b) a function from even numbers. Our current notation does not
distinguish between those two functions.
But we can easily extend it, in one of the following ways:
(16) a. xE E [x
2
+ x + 1]
b. x[ xE E | x
2
+ x + 1]
Domain Conditions
Notation in H&K:
x: xE E. x
2
+ x + 1 OR
x E E. x
2
+ x + 1
51
Note the following difference:
(17) a. x [xN N | x
2
+ x + 1](3) = 13
b. x [xE E | x
2
+ x + 1](3): not defined.
Domain Conditions
52
Functions can expect complex arguments, for example, sets or
other functions. This is often indicated with different variable
names, like X for sets or f for functions.
(18) a. X[X {1, 2, 3}]
b. X[X {1, 2, 3}]({2, 3, 4}) = {2, 3}
c. X[X {1, 2, 3}]({4, 5, 6}) = c
d. X[X {1, 2, 3}]( ): undefined
The functions are not defined when applied to a person because
intersection is only defined for sets.
We could make this explicit in our extended lambda notation:
(19) X[ X is a set | X {1, 2, 3}]
Complex Arguments: Sets
Convention: capital
letters stand for sets
53
We can also have function arguments, i.e. higher-order
functions:
(20) f[f(3)]
We can work with such higher-order functions as usual:
(21) a. f[f(3)](x[x
2
])
= x[x
2
](3)
= 3
2
= 9
b. f[f(3)](x[x
2
+ x + 1])
= x[x
2
+ x + 1](3)
= 3
2
+ 3 + 1
= 13
Complex Arguments: Functions
54
After having seen functions as arguments, we will now
consider cases of functions as values:
(22) xy[x
2
+ y]
This function takes a value x and delivers a function that in
turn takes a value y and gives the value x
2
+ y.
Example:
(23) xy[x
2
+ y](3)(4)
= y[9 + y](4)
= 9 + 4
= 13.
Functions as Values
Note:
(24) a. x[x
2
+ x + 1]
b. =y[y
2
+ y + 1]
(25) a. xy[x
2
+ y]
b. = yx[y
2
+ x]
c. xx[x
2
+ x]
constant function
55
Functions
Function
Composition
56
We can also compose functions (or relations in general).
For example, the composition of the function g: {A, B, C, D}
{1, 2, 3, 4} and the function f: {1, 2, 3, 4} {, , , } is
indicated in the following diagram.
Function Composition
A
B
C
D
1
2
3
4
g
f
f g
f[g[x[f(g(x))]]]
57
(26) f[g[x[f(g(x))]]]
Example:
(27) f[g[x[f(g(x)))]]](y[y + 1])(z[z + z])
= g[x[y[y + 1](g(x))]](z[z + z])
= x[y[y + 1](z[z + z](x))]
= x[y[y + 1](x + x)]
= x[x + x + 1]
Question: Do we get the same result if we feed the
arguments in reverse order?
58
The meaning of maternal grandfather can be defined as a
composition of the meaning of father and the meaning
of mother:
(28) maternal grandfather
= f[g[x[f(g(x)))]]](y[the father of y])(z[the mother
of z])
= g[x[y[the father of y](g(x))]](z[the mother of z])
= x[y[the father of y](z[the mother of z](x))]
= x[y[the father of y](the mother of x)]
= x[the father of the mother of x]
Linguistic Examples for
59
Swedish is rather systematic in this respect: morfar, lit.
mother father, means maternal grandfather (and similarly
mormor, farmor and farfar).
Meaning of morfar can be derived by the meanings of the
simpler terms mor and far by functional composition:
(29) morfar =
f[g[x[f(g(x)))]]](far)(mor) = far mor
Linguistic Examples for
60
Homework
1. Read Chapter 2 of Heim & Kratzers textbook, Sections 2.1-2.3 of
Krifkas notes, and go through the lecture notes again.
2. H&K p.23: Exercise on sentence connectives.
Pls. provide a solution that uses the ternary branching structure for
"and" and "or. Don't worry about a binary branching solution.
3. Reduce the following -terms as far as possible:
a) x[x + 7](3)
b) x[ y[2x + y](1)](2)
c) f y[f(3) + y](4)( x[x
2
])
d) f[f(1) + f(2)]( x[x
2
])
e) g[g(g(1))( x[2x + 3])
4. Give a lambda-term that defines the following function:
The function that takes a set P and maps it to a function that takes
a set Q and maps it to the intersection of P and Q.

IntroSem2008 03

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

IntroSem2008 03

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Introduction to Semantics

limps = f : D {0,1} for all xD, f(x)=1 iff x limps

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen