LIN3021 Formal Semantics Lecture 8 Albert Gatt In

LIN3021 Formal Semantics Lecture 8 Albert Gatt In

LIN3021 Formal Semantics Lecture 8 Albert Gatt In this lecture Noun phrases as generalised quantifiers Part 1 A bit of motivation Not all NPs are referential Weve mainly considered NPs that refer (i.e. Pick out an individual or a kind) in some sense: Singular definites: the man

Plural definites: the men, John and Mary Proper names: Jake Generics: Tigers But clearly, this wont cover all NPs... Are indefinites referential? 1. A duck waddled in. It was called Donald. We could conceivably argue that a duck is referential (and refers to Donald). After all, we use a definite pronoun (it) to refer back to it. But what about these? 2. A student slipped on the stairs (but Ive

no idea who) 3. That cant be a basilisk. There arent any. Other types of NPs 4. Two ducks waddled in. 5. Every duck is a quack. 6. No duck can talk. 7. Between twenty and twenty five ducks swim in the dirty pond. 8. Nobody will cry at my funeral. Surely, we dont want to say that these are referential (type e) in the usual sense? Commonalities in form

1. A duck waddled in. It was called Donald. 2. A student slipped on the stairs (but Ive no idea who) 3. That cant be a basilisk. There arent any. 4. Two ducks waddled in. 5. Every duck is a quack. 6. No duck can talk. 7. Between twenty and twenty five ducks swim in the dirty pond. 8. Nobody will cry at my funeral. A determiner (or a part of one, in the case of nobody, everybody, somebody etc) A noun (or N-bar, which may include modifiers) The question

Can we give a unified account of these NPs? If theyre not referential, and not of type e, what can they be? I.e. How do they combine with predicates like swim? What is the relationship between such NPs and the ones weve seen so far (e.g. The dog, Paul etc)? Part 2 NPs as generalised quantifiers

Some formal stuff If we stick to predicate logic, we do have some way of dealing with some determiners, like every and some and a (when its non-referential). Every man walks. x[man(x) walk(x)] Some duck quacks x [duck(x) quack(x)] There are three issues however: These quantifiers dont cover all the cases were interested in. The PL formula doesnt really reflect the NL combination (i.e. its not very transparently compositional) Were still no closer to solving the problem of how walks

(type ) combines with every man (which is not of type e) Compositionality: PL vs NL Every man walks x[man(x) walk(x)] Order of composition: The syntax is: [[every man] walks] This tells us that we have: First, the quantifier combining with a property: every + man Then, the result + the second property [every man] + walk Note: this isnt something that emerges clearly from the PL formula. Also, first order PL wont allow us to formalise quantifiers like most. Most N V makes an explicit comparison between N and V (two sets, or

predicates). We need a way of saying there are more Ns which are Vs than there are Ns which are not Vs But this requires that we have predicate variables, as well as individual variables. Some more observations Every man walks Components: the property man the property walk These combine to form a complete sentence with the help of every. Turning the analysis on its

head Every man walks Weve thought of NP+VP composition in terms of: A predicate that expects an individual to be saturated () An individual that combines with the predicate (e) A resulting proposition (t) Suppose we think in roughly the opposite direction: A quantifier expects two properties (e.g. Man and walks) These predicates combine with the quantifier to yield a proposition. So in a sense, the quantifier expresses a relation between the two properties.

Quantifiers and predicates Every man walks So in a sense, the quantifier expresses a relation between the two properties. Every represents a relation between two properties P and Q such that: All the things which are P are also Q Similarly, two represents a relation between P and Q such that: There are exactly two things which are P which are also Q

No represents a relation between P and Q such that: Nothing which is P is also Q ...and so on Quantifiers as relations between sets We can take a step towards formalising this intuition by thinking of quantifiers like every, some, no etc as saying something about the relationship between the two sets represented by the two predicates N(oun) and V(erb): Every N V: N V

Some/a N V: N V No N V: N V = Two N V: | N V | = 2 Most N V: | N V | > | N-V| There are more N things which are V than there are things which arent V In graphics Every man walks P

Q [[every]] In graphics Every man walks P Q [[man]] [[every]] Q

[[every man]] In graphics Every man walks Q [[every man]] [[every man walks]] [[walk]] Formally Every man walks P

[[man]] Type: predicate Q [[every man walks]] Type: t (proposition) [[walk]] Type: (predicate) We want: Every + man first. Then: every man + V to yield a proposition (type t) So we know that the type of every man must be something that:

Takes a predicate (walk -- ) to yield a proposition (t) So: <,t> Formally Every man walks P [[man]] Type: predicate Q [[every man walks]] Type: t (proposition)

[[walk]] Type: (predicate) If every man is of type <,t>, then: Every on its own must be something that: Takes a property (man) to yield something of type <,t>, which can then combine with something of type to give t. Therefore: <,<,t>> A function that: Takes a predicate of type and Returns a function that: Takes another predicate of type to yield A proposition of type t Every man walks [[every man walks]]

t [[every man]] <,t>> [[every]] <,< ,t>> [[man]] Walk Formally

[[every]] = PQPPQQx[P(x) Q(x)] This is a function that expects two properties (P and Q) and says: every P is a Q To get every man walks, we: Combine every with man PQPPQQx[P(x) Q(x)](man) = PQQx[man(x) Q(x)] Combine the result with walk PQQx[man(x) Q(x)](walk) = x[man(x) walk(x)] NPs as generalised

quantifiers The way weve analysed NPs like every man views them as properties of properties (or sets of sets) These types of semantic objects are known as generalised quantifiers. The idea is that we should be able to apply this analysis to all NPs of the forms weve considered so far. A few more examples A duck walked [[a]] = PQPPQQx[P(x) Q(x)]

No duck walked [[no]] = PQPPQQx[P(x) Q(x)] Two ducks walked [[two]] = PQPPQQ[P(x) Q(x) |P Q| = 2] Part 3 Are all NPs GQs? The two theories of definites The man walks Frege: the man is referential; the picks out the unique, most salient man in the context. Russell: the man is incomplete; it asserts

existence and uniqueness and requires a x[(man(x) y(man(y) y=x)) & predicate to&yield a sentence. walk(x)] Asserts uniqueness: if anything is a man, its the x were talking about. Alternatively: nothing other than x is a man. The two theories of definites The man walks Interestingly, Russells theory of descriptions allows us to view definite

descriptions as generalised quantifiers. [[the]] = PQPPQQx[P(x) y(P(y) y=x)) & Q(x)] [[the man]] = PQQx[man(x) y(man(y) y=x)) & Q(x)] In other words, if we adopt something like Russells analysis, we can think of NPs like the man as being on a par with NPs like The two theories of proper names Theory 1 (Kripke): Names are purely referential Theory 2: Names are actually hidden

descriptions, with a descriptive meaning. More generally, the denotation of a name like john is the set of Johns properties. Theory 2 reconsidered This second theory would actually allow us to view names on a par with quantified NPs. Just as we think of every man as the set of sets of men, we could think of John as the set of those sets (predicates) that contain John: PQP[P(j)]

So now, John walks becomes: PQP[P(j)](walk) = walk(j) Again, the advantage is that we get a unified treatment of all NPs, including names. Names as GQs: an advantage Some geese Two men A baby

Ray Fabri and/or some chickens three women a cat Robert Plant Notice that these NPs can be conjoined together (using and or or). Typically, conjunction pairs like with like. We cant

normally conjoin two phrases that are syntactically and semantically different. Thus: Hes a nice and clever guy (OK) *Hes a nice and slowly guy (bad) He and a woman walked in (OK) *He and swam (bad) Names as GQs: an advantage Some geese Two men A baby Ray Fabri and/or

some chickens three women a cat Robert Plant It appears that names can be conjoined with quantified NPs and definites etc. This would suggest that they are of a kind, semantically speaking. Perhaps this is an argument for treating names as GQs, as we do for some geese, two men etc.

So which theories should we choose? While there is a fair bit of agreement on quantified NPs generally, the proper analysis of definites and names remains controversial. For our purposes, the important thing is that we know that there exists a unified analysis: GQs are powerful enough to accommodate (apparently) all NPs. As always, adopting a theory means buying into certain assumptions (names are descriptive; definites assert uniqueness, etc).

Part 4 Generalised quantifiers and negative polarity items Negative polarity items Some expressions seem to be biased towards negative shades of meaning: Nobody has ever been there. No person in this room has any money. *The people have ever been there. *Jake has any money. Negative polarity items But in some non-negative contexts, an NPI seems ok:

*The people have ever been there. Have people ever been there? If people have ever been there, Ill be very surprised. *Jake has any money. Has Jake got any money? If Jake has any money he should pay for his own drinks. The relevant contexts include questions, if-clauses etc Negative polarity items NPIs are also ok with certain generalised quantifiers, but not others. *The people have ever been there.

Every person whos ever been here was stunned. *Some person whos ever been here was stunned. *Jake has any money. Every man who has any money should buy a round. *Some man who has any money should buy a round. Negative polarity items Theres a difference between an NPI within the GQ and an NPI in the VP: NPI inside quantifier: Every man who has ever met Mary loved her. No man who has ever met Mary loved her. *Some man who has ever met Mary loved her.

*Three men who have ever met Mary loved her. NPI inside predicate *Every man has ever met Mary. No man has ever met Mary. *Some man has ever met Mary. *Three men have ever met Mary loved her. An aside about entailments Recall the definition of hyponymy: I am a man I am a human being. Entailment from a property (man) to a super-property (human) Upward entailment (specific to general) I am not a human being I am not a man Entailment from a property (human) to a sub-property (man) Downward entailment (general to specific)

Notice that negation reverses the entailment with hyponyms How quantifiers come into the picture A quantifier is doubly unsaturated: it combines with two properties: (DET P) Q Were interested in how quantifiers behave with respect to upward and downward entailments.

Every N V Every human being walks First property (inside the GQ) DE ok Every man walks. UE blocked: Every animal walks. Second property (VP): DE blocked: Every human being walks fast. (not downward entailing) UE ok Every human being moves. Some N V Some human being walks First property (inside the GQ) DE blocked: Some man walks.

UE OK: Some animal walks. Second property (VP): DE blocked: Some human being walks fast. UE ok: Some human being moves. Three N V Three human beings walk First property (inside the GQ) DE blocked: Three men walk. UE OK: Three animals walk. Second property (VP): DE blocked: Three human beings walk fast. UE ok: Three human beings move.

No N V No human beings walk First property (inside the GQ) DE Ok: No men walk. UE blocked: No animals walk. Second property (VP): DE OK: No human beings walk fast. UE blocked: No human beings move. Summary First Property DE Second Property

UE DE UE Every Y N N Y

No Y N Y N Some N Y

N Y Three N Y N Y NPIs are licensed in DE contexts

First Property DE Second Property UE DE UE Every Y N

N Y No Y N Y N Some

N Y N Y Three N Y N

Y Every man who has ever seen Mary loved her. *Every man has ever seen Mary. *Some man who has ever seen Mary loved her. *Some man has ever seen Mary. No man who has ever seen Mary *Three men who have ever seen Mary loved her. loved her. No man has ever seen Mary. *Three men have ever seen Mary.

What about other languages? Can you think of the DE/UE entailments in languages such as Italian and English? What are the counterparts of NPIs in these languages? Are they licensed in the same way? Could we claim that this is a semantic universal?

Recently Viewed Presentations

  • Emotion Detection - Kennesaw State University

    Emotion Detection - Kennesaw State University

    Emotion Detection Disorders. Social-emotional agnosia, also known as emotional agnosia or expressive agnosia, is the inability to perceive facial expressions, body language, and voice intonation.A person with this disorder is unable to non-verbally perceive others' emotions in social situations, limiting...
  • The Skeletal System - Mrs. Ward&#x27;s Science Class

    The Skeletal System - Mrs. Ward's Science Class

    The Skeletal System is the body system responsible for support and protection. The purpose of the skeletal system is to: Support. Protect. Provide Movement (along with the Muscular system) Skeletal System (Pg. 23)
  • Transition to College

    Transition to College

    Transition to College New environment New roles New procedures Areas of Potential Conflict Establishing entitlement to services Shared responsibilities The role of parents/advocates Balancing the right to accommodation & the right to protect the integrity of programs and services Student...
  • Funds Management: Industry briefing 24 November 2017 Draft

    Funds Management: Industry briefing 24 November 2017 Draft

    How we apply the constitution content requirements of the Corporations Act when deciding whether to register a managed investment scheme. New RG . How to establish and register a fund. ... PowerPoint Presentation Last modified by: joseph.rullo
  • Dawn of Multilingual Science Library of Alexandria BA

    Dawn of Multilingual Science Library of Alexandria BA

    Albert Einstein Воображение важнее знаний (Russian) الخيال أكثر أهمية من المعرفة(Arabic) 想象力比知识更重要 (Chinese) L'imagination est plus important que la connaissance (French) Translate button to 103 languages "Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 requires recipients of Federal ...
  • Session 5A The Humanistic Dimension

    Session 5A The Humanistic Dimension

    What Is Humanism? Humanism is a philosophical and ethical stance that emphasizes the value and agency of human beings, individually and ... In social theory and philosophy, anti-humanism is a theory that is critical of traditional (modern secular) humanism and...
  • The Cold War and Decolonization - Aurora Public Schools

    The Cold War and Decolonization - Aurora Public Schools

    Decolonization of Africa increase Gen. Assembly size-over time more concerned with the problems of the majority (poverty, racism, etc.) but the Security Council dominated other issues. Resolutions used to mean something (Israel, the moon.)
  • Omro Middle School Library

    Omro Middle School Library

    Books Paperbacks like Diary of a Wimpy Kid Hardcover fiction like The Mazerunner and Legend Nooks and e-books via Follett Shelf Audiobooks on playaway, CD, MP3 CD, cassettes and downloadable via Catalist Digital Nonfiction on every subject from the Abominable...