Model Answers to Problem Set 2

Similar documents
Top Down and Bottom Up Composition. 1 Notes on Notation and Terminology. 2 Top-down and Bottom-Up Composition. Two senses of functional application

INTRODUCTION TO LOGIC. Propositional Logic. Examples of syntactic claims

Introduction to Semantics. The Formalization of Meaning 1

The same definition may henceforth be expressed as follows:

Moreno Mitrović. The Saarland Lectures on Formal Semantics

Propositional Logic and Semantics

Quantification in the predicate calculus

Lecture 7. Logic. Section1: Statement Logic.

The Semantics of Definite DPs 1. b. Argument Position: (i) [ A politician ] arrived from Washington. (ii) Joe likes [ the politician ].

Exclusive Disjunction

CSCE 222 Discrete Structures for Computing. Propositional Logic. Dr. Hyunyoung Lee. !!!!!! Based on slides by Andreas Klappenecker

Introduction to Semantics. Common Nouns and Adjectives in Predicate Position 1

Ling 130 Notes: Syntax and Semantics of Propositional Logic

Suppose h maps number and variables to ɛ, and opening parenthesis to 0 and closing parenthesis

Semantics and Generative Grammar. A Little Bit on Adverbs and Events

Propositional Languages

AI Principles, Semester 2, Week 2, Lecture 5 Propositional Logic and Predicate Logic

SOME NOTES ON LOGIC AND QUANTIFIER RAISING

Revisit summer... go to the Fitzwilliam Museum!

A Little Deductive Logic

Languages. Languages. An Example Grammar. Grammars. Suppose we have an alphabet V. Then we can write:

3. Only sequences that were formed by using finitely many applications of rules 1 and 2, are propositional formulas.

A Little Deductive Logic

CHAPTER 2 INTRODUCTION TO CLASSICAL PROPOSITIONAL LOGIC

Propositional Logic. Testing, Quality Assurance, and Maintenance Winter Prof. Arie Gurfinkel

Logic for Computer Science - Week 2 The Syntax of Propositional Logic

cis32-ai lecture # 18 mon-3-apr-2006

Semantics and Generative Grammar. Expanding Our Formalism, Part 1 1

Logic as a Tool Chapter 1: Understanding Propositional Logic 1.1 Propositions and logical connectives. Truth tables and tautologies

cse541 LOGIC FOR COMPUTER SCIENCE

3. The Logic of Quantified Statements Summary. Aaron Tan August 2017

THE LOGIC OF QUANTIFIED STATEMENTS. Predicates and Quantified Statements I. Predicates and Quantified Statements I CHAPTER 3 SECTION 3.

Ling 5801: Lecture Notes 7 From Programs to Context-Free Grammars

Parsing. Based on presentations from Chris Manning s course on Statistical Parsing (Stanford)

Logical forms and substitution instances. Philosophy and Logic Unit 2, Section 2.1

MA103 STATEMENTS, PROOF, LOGIC

Introduction to Semantics. Pronouns and Variable Assignments. We ve seen that implicatures are crucially related to context.

More on Names and Predicates

Parsing. Context-Free Grammars (CFG) Laura Kallmeyer. Winter 2017/18. Heinrich-Heine-Universität Düsseldorf 1 / 26

1.1 Language and Logic

Spring 2018 Ling 620 The Basics of Intensional Semantics, Part 1: The Motivation for Intensions and How to Formalize Them 1

GRADE 6 Projections Masters

Comp487/587 - Boolean Formulas

a. ~p : if p is T, then ~p is F, and vice versa

Logic. Readings: Coppock and Champollion textbook draft, Ch

15414/614 Optional Lecture 1: Propositional Logic

Logic. proof and truth syntacs and semantics. Peter Antal

CHAPTER THREE: RELATIONS AND FUNCTIONS

Lecture 2: Syntax. January 24, 2018

Introducing Proof 1. hsn.uk.net. Contents

Mat 243 Exam 1 Review

Propositional Logic: Part II - Syntax & Proofs 0-0

PART II QUANTIFICATIONAL LOGIC

It is not the case that ϕ. p = It is not the case that it is snowing = It is not. r = It is not the case that Mary will go to the party =

Parsing with Context-Free Grammars

Mathematics for linguists

For all For every For each For any There exists at least one There exists There is Some

Compositionality and Syntactic Structure Marcus Kracht Department of Linguistics UCLA 3125 Campbell Hall 405 Hilgard Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90095

(NB. Pages are intended for those who need repeated study in formal languages) Length of a string. Formal languages. Substrings: Prefix, suffix.

Computational Semantics Day 4: Extensionality and intensionality

Composing intensions. Thomas Ede Zimmermann (Frankfurt) University of Hyderabad March 2012

Generalized Quantifiers Logical and Linguistic Aspects

Mathematical Preliminaries. Sipser pages 1-28

Categorial Grammar. Larry Moss NASSLLI. Indiana University

Section 2.3: Statements Containing Multiple Quantifiers

THE LOGIC OF COMPOUND STATEMENTS

THE LOGIC OF QUANTIFIED STATEMENTS

COSE312: Compilers. Lecture 2 Lexical Analysis (1)

Context Free Grammars

ECS 20: Discrete Mathematics for Computer Science UC Davis Phillip Rogaway June 12, Final Exam

Ling 240 Lecture #15. Syntax 4

Propositional Logic Logical Implication (4A) Young W. Lim 4/21/17

Lecture Notes on Inductive Definitions

22c:145 Artificial Intelligence

Intensionality. 1. Intensional Propositional Logic (IntPL).

Formal Logic Lecture 11

A Polynomial Time Algorithm for Parsing with the Bounded Order Lambek Calculus

Foundation of proofs. Jim Hefferon.

Propositional Logic. Yimei Xiang 11 February format strictly follow the laws and never skip any step.

CS1021. Why logic? Logic about inference or argument. Start from assumptions or axioms. Make deductions according to rules of reasoning.

Lecture Notes on Inductive Definitions

Computational Linguistics

Proofs. Joe Patten August 10, 2018

A Logic Primer. Stavros Tripakis University of California, Berkeley. Stavros Tripakis (UC Berkeley) EE 144/244, Fall 2014 A Logic Primer 1 / 35

Introduction to Metalogic

INTENSIONS MARCUS KRACHT

Lecture 4: Proposition, Connectives and Truth Tables

Chapter 2: The Logic of Quantified Statements

Propositional logic. First order logic. Alexander Clark. Autumn 2014

LECTURER: BURCU CAN Spring

Knowledge representation DATA INFORMATION KNOWLEDGE WISDOM. Figure Relation ship between data, information knowledge and wisdom.

Sample Problems for all sections of CMSC250, Midterm 1 Fall 2014

Symbolic Logic 3. For an inference to be deductively valid it is impossible for the conclusion to be false if the premises are true.

Computational Linguistics. Acknowledgements. Phrase-Structure Trees. Dependency-based Parsing

Multivariate Statistics

Chapter 4: Classical Propositional Semantics

Chapter 2: Introduction to Propositional Logic

CSE 1400 Applied Discrete Mathematics Definitions


EECS 1028 M: Discrete Mathematics for Engineers

Transcription:

Dr. Elizabeth Coppock Compositional emantics coppock@phil.hhu.de Heinrich Heine University Nov 2nd, 2011 Winter emester 2011/12 Model Answers to Problem et 2 Reading: Dowty, Wall and Peters (1981), pp. 14 35, 44 47 Question 1. Verify that [K(d,j) M(d)] is a well-formed sentence ofl 0 given the formation rules in (2-1) and (2-2). (2-1) Category Basic expressions Names d,n,j,m One-place predicates M, B Two-place predicates K, L (2-2) 1. Ifδ is a one place predicate andαis a name, thenδ(α) is a sentence. 2. Ifγ is a two place predicate andαandβ are names, thenγ(α,β) is a sentence. 3. Ifφis a sentence, then φ is a sentence. 4. Ifφandψ are sentences, then[φ ψ] is a sentence. 5. Ifφandψ are sentences, then[φ ψ] is a sentence. 6. Ifφandψ are sentences, then[φ ψ] is a sentence. 7. Ifφandψ are sentences, then[φ ψ] is a sentence. olution: incedandj are names andk is a two-place predicate according to (2-1), K(d,j) is a sentence according to (2-2)-2. And sincedis a name andm is a one place predicate according to (2-1), M(d) is a sentence according to (2-2)-1. Two sentences joined by form a sentence according to rule (2-2)-4, so the entire expression is a sentence. Question 2. What sorts of semantic values do one-place predicates have inl 0? Answer: ets of individuals. Question 3. If M is a one-place predicate and j denotes an individual, then how do we determine the truth value ofm(j) inl 0? Answer: [M(j)] = 1 iff [j] [M], because M is a one-place predicate, and j is a name. According to Rule (2-8)B1 (p. 21): If δ is a one-place predicate and α is a name, thenδ(α) is true iff [α] [δ]. Question 4. Give an example of a two-place relationk such that a,c K.

Example answers: a stands for apples and c stands for carrots and K is the is sweeter than relation. [Defining K by description] K = { a,a, a,b, a,c } [DefiningK by listing its members] Question 5. Give interpretations like the ones in (2-7) for the predicates K and M and the constants d and j that would make sentence 1 of example (2-4) true, keeping the semantic rules in (2-8). entence 1 of example (2-4), for reference: K(d, j) M(d) Example solution: [K] = the set of all pairs of people such that the first one killed the second one [M] = the set of all living people who are professional killers [d] = Lee Harvey Oswald [j] = John F. Kennedy (thanks to ebastian Klinge) Question 6. Construct a phrase structure tree for one of the sentences in (2-10). olution (based on the phrase-structure rules given in (2-9)): N adie VP V i snores Alternate notation for this tree: [ [ N adie ] [ VP [ Vi snores ] ] ] Question 7. Let the set of individualsa be{a,b,c,d,e,f,g}. What is the characteristic function of the set {a,b,c}? Answer: a 1 b 1 c 1 d 0 e 0 f 0 2

Alternate notation for the same answer: { a, 1, b, 1, c, 1, d, 0, e, 0, f, 0 } Alternate answer: The functionf, defined such thatf(x) = 1 ifx {a,b,c} and 0 otherwise. Question 8. (i) Are the semantic values of intransitive verbs inl 0E sets of individuals or characteristic functions of sets of individuals? (ii) What about L 0? (iii) Is there any reason to choose one over the other (p. 28)? Answers: (i) The semantic values of intransitive verbs inl 0E are characteristic functions. (ii) InL 0 they are sets (as stated in the answer to question #2). (iii) There is no crucial (i.e. empirical) reason, since sets and characteristic functions are essentially two ways of looking at what amounts to the same thing. However, [i]t may be more elegant to formalize semantic values as characteristic functions rather than sets in that the semantic rules which produce a truth value as output are assimilated to other rules which work by applying a function to an argument. Question 9. Do problem (2-6), p. 29. PROBLEM (2-6). Determine by means of the semantic rules just given the semantic values of the phrase structure trees of Hank sleeps and Liz is-boring. The semantic rules that had just been given: (2-19) If α is [ γ β], 1 where γ is any lexical category and β is any lexical item, and γ β is a syntactic rule, then [α] = [β] (2-20) Ifαis [ VP β ] andβ is V i, then [α] = [β]. (2-21) Ifαis N andβ is VP, and ifγ is [ α β], then [γ] = [β]([α]) We will also need lexical entries for Liz, Hank, sleeps, and is-boring: Anwar adat 1 [sleeps] = Queen Elizabeth 0 Henry Kissinger 0 Anwar adat 1 [is-boring] = Queen Elizabeth 1 Henry Kissinger 1 Phrase structure trees: 1 ee question 6 regarding this way of notating trees. 3

N VP N VP Hank V i Liz V i sleeps is-boring Computation of semantic value for Hank sleeps. [ [ [ N Hank][ VP [ Vi sleeps]]] ] = [ [ VP [ Vi sleeps]] ]( [ [ N Hank] ] ) (2-21) = [ [ Vi sleeps] ]( [ [ N Hank] ] ) (2-20) = [sleeps]( [Hank] ) (2-19) = [sleeps](henry Kissinger) (lex. entry for Hank) = 0 (lex. entry for sleeps) The computation for Liz is-boring is analogous, yielding a value of 1 in this case. Question 10. What is the truth value of Henry Kissinger sleeps inl 0E? (p. 30) It is not a sentence ofl OE, because it is not generated by the phrase structure rules, so it has no truth value! Question 11. How do Dowty, Wall and Peters reconcile the following two facts: 1) VPs have as their semantic values functions from individuals to truth values; 2) Transitive verbs seem to express binary relations between individuals? (pp. 30 31) By taking advantage of the isomorphism between relations and functions that allows the former to be rewritten as functions which yield other functions as its outputs. Question 12. Do problem (2-8). PROBLEM (2-8). Determine the truth value assigned to each of the phrase structure trees constructed in Problem (2-3), under the assumed assignments of semantic values to terminal symbols ofl OE. PROBLEM (2-3). Construct all the phrase structure trees associated with the sentences in (2-10). The fourth sentence should have two trees. et your results aside for Problem (2-8). (2-10) 1. adie snores. 2. Liz sleeps. 3. It-is-not-the-case-that Hank snores. 4. adie sleeps or Liz is-boring and Hank snores. 5. It-is-not-the-case-that it-is-not-the-case-that adie sleeps. 4

Phrase structure trees: 1. [ [ N adie][ VP [ Vi snores]]] 2. [ [ N Liz][ VP [ Vi sleeps]]] 3. [ It-is-not-the-case-that[ [ N Hank][ VP [ Vi snores]]]] 4a. Conj adie sleeps or Conj Liz is boring and Hank snores 4b. Conj Conj and Hank snores adie sleeps or Liz is-boring 5. [ It-is-not-the-case-that[ it-is-not-the-case-that[ [ N adie][ VP [ Vi sleeps]]]]] emantic values for terminal symbols: [adie] = Anwar adat (2-12) [Liz] = Queen Elizabeth II (2-12) [Hank] = Henry Kissinger (2-12) Anwar adat 1 [snores] = Queen Elizabeth 1 (2-13) Henry Kissinger 0 Anwar adat 1 [sleeps] = Queen Elizabeth 0 (2-14) Henry Kissinger 0 Anwar adat 1 [is-boring] = Queen Elizabeth 1 (2-15) [ Henry Kissinger ] 1 1 0 [it-is-not-the-case-that] = (2-31) 0 1 5

[and] = [or] = 1,1 1 1,0 0 0,1 0 0,0 0 1,1 1 1,0 1 0,1 1 0,0 0 (2-33) (2-34) The semantic composition rules that we need are, in addition to (2-19), (2-20), and (2-21), the following two: (2-32) Ifαis Neg andφis, and if ψ is [ α φ], then [ψ] = [α]([ψ]) (2-35) Ifαis Conj,φis, andψ is, and ifω is [ φαψ], then [ω] = [α]( [φ], [ψ] ) olutions. 1. adie snores. [[ [ N adie][ VP [ Vi snores]]]] = [[ VP [ Vi snores]]]([[ N adie]]) (2-21) = [[ Vi snores]]([[ N adie]]) (2-20) = [snores]([adie]) (2-19) = [snores](anwar adat) (lex. entry for adie) = 1 (lex. entry for snores) 2. Liz sleeps. [[ [ N Liz][ VP [ Vi sleeps]]]] = [[ VP [ Vi sleeps]]]([[ N Liz]]) (2-21) = [[ Vi sleeps]]([[ N Liz]]) (2-20) = [sleeps]([liz]) (2-19) = [sleeps](queen Elizabeth II) (lex. entry for Liz) = 0 (lex. entry for sleeps) 3. It-is-not-the-case-that Hank snores. [[ [ Neg It-is-not-the-case-that][ [ N Hank][ VP [ Vi snores]]]]] = [[ Neg It-is-not-the-case-that]]([[ [ N Hank][ VP [ Vi snores]]]]) (2-32) = [[ Neg It-is-not-the-case-that]](0) (analogous to #1 and #2) = [It-is-not-the-case-that](0) (2-19) = 1 (lex. entry 2-31) 4a. [adie sleeps] or [Liz is-boring and Hank snores] 6

First let us compute the semantic values for the sentences. Let us use the name for the phrase structure tree corresponding to adie sleeps, LB for the tree for Liz isboring, and H for the tree for Hank snores. [] = 1 [LB] = 1 [H] = 0 o what we want to compute is: [ [ [ Conj or][ LB[ Conj and]h ] ]] ]. [ [ [ Conj or][ LB[ Conj and]h ] ] ] ] = [ [ Conj or] ]( [], [ [ LB[ Conj and]h] ] ) (2-35) = [or]( [], [[ LB[ Conj and]h]] ) (2-19) = [or]( [], [and]( [LB], [H] )) (2-19, 2-33) = [or]( [], 0 ) (lex. entry for and) = [or]( 1, 0 ) (computed above) = 1 (lex. entry for or) 4b. [adie sleeps or Liz is-boring] and Hank snores What we want to compute is [ [ [ [ Conj or]lb][ Conj and]h ] ]. This will end up as: [and]([or]( [], [LB] ), [H] ) = [and]( [or]( 1,1 ),0 ) = [and]( 1,0 ) = 0 5. It-is-not-the-case-that it-is-not-the-case-that adie sleeps. After two applications of the negation rule (2-32), we get: [it-is-not-the-case-that]([it-is-not-the-case-that]()) = [it-is-not-the-case-that]([it-is-not-the-case-that](1)) = [it-is-not-the-case-that](0) = 1 The fourth sentence in (2-10) would have posed a problem if we had attempted to assign semantic values to terminal strings rather than trees or labelled bracketings. Why? Why could be assign semantic values directly to terminal strings if we were dealing with a syntactically ambiguous language. Answer: We want semantic values to be assigned by a function, and a function gives a single output for every input. Question 13. It is important to recognize that a sentence can be true with respect to one model but false with respect to another. Dowty, Wall and Peters illustrate this by giving three models that yield different truth values for the sentence M(d). Give another sentence φ of L 0 such that [φ] M1 = 1 and [φ] M2 = 0 (where M 1 and M 2 are 7

defined as on pp. 46 7), and explain why. The constants in the two models are interpreted as follows: F 1 F 2 M {Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, the set of all odd integers Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island} B states that have Pacific coasts perfect squares K states such that some part of the first lies west of some part of the second pairs of integers such that the first is greater than the second L pairs of states such that the first is larger than the second pairs of integers such that the first is the square of the second m Michigan 2 j California 0 d Alaska 9 n Rhode Island -1 One possible answer: the square of -1. L(j, n). California is bigger than Rhode Island, but 0 is not Histogram of scores 8