Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
Introduction to Semantics<br />
<strong>Session</strong> 8<br />
Quantification<br />
Cornelia Endriss<br />
Cognitive Science Program<br />
University of Osnabrück<br />
cendriss@uos.de
Outline for Today<br />
1. Homework from 2 weeks ago<br />
2. Quantificational DPs: Type and Lexical Semantics<br />
• First Try: Individuals<br />
• Second Try: Sets<br />
• Finally: Sets of Sets<br />
3. Quantificational Determiners<br />
4. Formal Properties of Quantifiers<br />
03.06.20<strong>08</strong> Slides based on semantics textbook from I. Heim & A. Kratzer<br />
and lecture notes from M. Krifka<br />
2
Homework<br />
Homework<br />
03.06.20<strong>08</strong> Slides based on semantics textbook from I. Heim & A. Kratzer<br />
and lecture notes from M. Krifka<br />
3
Homework<br />
1. The intensifier very combines with adjectives as the following DP<br />
illustrates:<br />
the very intelligent student<br />
Which class of adjectives can be intensified by very? Why can<br />
others not be intensified by very? Figure out the semantic type of<br />
very and try to give a lexical semantics for it. For instance, you can<br />
think of a very intelligent student as intelligent compared to the<br />
intelligent students.<br />
2. H&K p.79: Exercise 1 (escalator in South College) on the definite<br />
determiner.<br />
3. H&K p.80: Exercise 2 (apples in a row) on the definite determiner.<br />
03.06.20<strong>08</strong> Slides based on semantics textbook from I. Heim & A. Kratzer<br />
and lecture notes from M. Krifka<br />
4
Very<br />
Which class of adjectives can be intensified by very?<br />
The so-called gradable ones. According to the classification from<br />
H&K’s textbook the non-intersective non-intensional ones:<br />
(a) the very tall boy, the very intelligent girl.<br />
I.e. not the intersective ones:<br />
• (b) #the very red ball, #the very round circle<br />
but watch out for metalinguistic uses<br />
• Note also:<br />
(c) the very wet coat, the very full cupboard<br />
those so-called absolute standard adjectives are still gradable<br />
and hence modifiable by very<br />
I.e. not the intensional ones:<br />
(d) #the very former president<br />
03.06.20<strong>08</strong> Slides based on semantics textbook from I. Heim & A. Kratzer<br />
and lecture notes from M. Krifka<br />
5
Very<br />
Figure out the semantic type of very and try to give a lexical<br />
semantics for it. For instance, you can think of a very intelligent<br />
student as intelligent compared to the intelligent students.<br />
• Type: <br />
• Idea: very is an adjective-duplicater.<br />
• Adjective doubling is common in many languages<br />
Lit:<br />
the mean mean dog =<br />
‘the very mean dog’<br />
03.06.20<strong>08</strong> Slides based on semantics textbook from I. Heim & A. Kratzer<br />
and lecture notes from M. Krifka<br />
6
Very<br />
’very÷ = λR λQ . R(R(Q))<br />
’mean÷ = λPλx. P(x) & the meanness of x is above the average meanness of<br />
the elements of {y : P(y)}<br />
’very÷(’mean÷) = λQ λPλx. P(x) & the meanness of x is above the average<br />
meanness of the elements of {y : P(y)}(λPλx. P(x) & the meanness of x is<br />
above the average meanness of the elements of {y : P(y)}(Q))<br />
= λQ λPλx. P(x) & the meanness of x is above the average meanness of the<br />
elements of {y : P(y)}(λx. Q(x) & the meanness of x is above the average<br />
meanness of the elements of {y : Q(y)})<br />
= λQ λx. Q(x) & the meanness of x is above the average meanness of the<br />
elements of {y : Q(y)} & the meanness of x is above the average meanness<br />
of the elements of {y : Q(y) & the meanness of y is above the average<br />
meanness of the elements of {y : Q(y)}}<br />
03.06.20<strong>08</strong> Slides based on semantics textbook from I. Heim & A. Kratzer<br />
and lecture notes from M. Krifka<br />
7
Very<br />
’very÷(’mean÷)(’dog÷) = λQ λx. Q(x) & the meanness of x is above the<br />
average meanness of the elements of {y : Q(y)} & the meanness of x is<br />
above the average meanness of the elements of {y : Q(y) & the meanness of<br />
y is above the average meanness of the elements of {y : Q(y)}} (λz. dog(z))<br />
= λx. [λz.dog(z)(x)] & the meanness of x is above the average meanness of<br />
the elements of {y : λz. dog(z)(y)} & the meanness of x is above the average<br />
meanness of the elements of {y : [λz. dog(z)(y)] & the meanness of y is<br />
above the average meanness of the elements of {y : [λz. dog(z) (y)]}}<br />
= λx. dog(x) & the meanness of x is above the average meanness of the<br />
elements of {y : dog(y)} & the meanness of x is above the average<br />
meanness of the elements of {y : dog(y) & the meanness of y is above the<br />
average meanness of the elements of {y : dog(y)}}<br />
03.06.20<strong>08</strong> Slides based on semantics textbook from I. Heim & A. Kratzer<br />
and lecture notes from M. Krifka<br />
8
Very<br />
= λx. dog(x) & the meanness of x is above the average meanness of the<br />
elements of {y : dog(y) & the meanness of y is above the average meanness<br />
of the elements of {y : dog(y)}}<br />
= λx. dog(x) & the meanness of x is above the average meanness of a mean<br />
dog<br />
03.06.20<strong>08</strong> Slides based on semantics textbook from I. Heim & A. Kratzer<br />
and lecture notes from M. Krifka<br />
9
Very<br />
Note that many solutions that seem easier do not work, e.g.:<br />
’very÷ c<br />
= λPλx. x’s P-property is above s, where s is the standard<br />
made salient by the context of all y which are P in c.<br />
This solution does not work, because we do not know the “Pproperty”,<br />
we simply know the extension of P.<br />
Hence all solutions that assume ’very÷ to be of type <br />
are doomed to fail.<br />
Otherwise the set of very intelligent students would necessarily<br />
have to be the same as the set of very tall students, if the sets of<br />
intelligent creatures and the set of tall creatures happen to coincide<br />
in the world and the context under discussion.<br />
03.06.20<strong>08</strong> Slides based on semantics textbook from I. Heim & A. Kratzer<br />
and lecture notes from M. Krifka<br />
10
Escalator: H&K<br />
What does our current theory predict?<br />
Undefined because semantics of one<br />
of the daughter nodes undefinded<br />
Undefined because semantics of one<br />
of the daughter nodes undefinded<br />
Undefined because semantics of one<br />
of the daughter nodes undefinded<br />
’the÷(’escalator in South College÷) =<br />
λP∈D and there is ex. 1 x st. P(x)=1.<br />
(the) y such that P(y) = 1 (λx.e-i-SC(x))<br />
is undefined<br />
because P is the empty<br />
set. Hence<br />
presupposition failure.<br />
03.06.20<strong>08</strong> Slides based on semantics textbook from I. Heim & A. Kratzer<br />
and lecture notes from M. Krifka<br />
11
Escalator: Russel<br />
What would Russel predict?<br />
i’John uses the escalator in South College÷ = 1<br />
’John uses the escalator in South College÷ =<br />
∃x.e-i-SC(x) ∧ ∀y[e-i-SC(y) → x=y] ∧ use(john,x) = 0<br />
03.06.20<strong>08</strong> Slides based on semantics textbook from I. Heim & A. Kratzer<br />
and lecture notes from M. Krifka<br />
12
Escalator: intuitions<br />
What is empirically correct?<br />
Debatable. Depends on the context. There are contexts (maybe<br />
contrastive ones) where one could say something like John did<br />
not use the escalator in South College, because there is none.<br />
So here it seems that the definite determiner is not<br />
presuppositional or at least the entire sentence does not carry<br />
an existence presupposition. So here the current theory would<br />
make false predictions.<br />
03.06.20<strong>08</strong> Slides based on semantics textbook from I. Heim & A. Kratzer<br />
and lecture notes from M. Krifka<br />
13
Apples: intuitions<br />
b 1 b 2 b 3 b 4 b 5 b 6<br />
(i) (ii) (iii) = undefined<br />
(i) the leftmost apple in the row<br />
(ii) the leftmost dark apple in the row<br />
(iii) the apple that is both leftmost in the row and dark<br />
03.06.20<strong>08</strong> Slides based on semantics textbook from I. Heim & A. Kratzer<br />
and lecture notes from M. Krifka<br />
14
(i) the leftmost apple in the row<br />
DP <br />
’the÷(’leftmost apple in the row÷) =<br />
the unique y such that y is an apple in the row<br />
and y is leftmost<br />
the <br />
NP <br />
PM( x.x is an apple in the row,<br />
x.x is leftmost) =<br />
x.x is an apple in the row and x is leftmost<br />
leftmost N' <br />
x.x is an apple in the row<br />
apple in the row<br />
Assumption: ’leftmost÷ = λx. x is leftmost<br />
03.06.20<strong>08</strong> Slides based on semantics textbook from I. Heim & A. Kratzer<br />
and lecture notes from M. Krifka<br />
15
(i) the leftmost apple in the row<br />
b 1 b 2 b 3 b 4 b 5 b 6<br />
(i) (ii)<br />
(iii) = undefined<br />
̌<br />
(i) the leftmost apple in the row<br />
(ii) the leftmost dark apple in the row<br />
(iii) the apple that is both leftmost in the row and dark<br />
03.06.20<strong>08</strong> Slides based on semantics textbook from I. Heim & A. Kratzer<br />
and lecture notes from M. Krifka<br />
16
(ii) the leftmost dark apple in the row<br />
the<br />
<br />
DP<br />
leftmost<br />
<br />
’the÷( x. x is leftmost and x is dark and x is an apple<br />
in the row) = the unique y such that y is an apple<br />
in the row and y is leftmost and y is dark<br />
NP<br />
PM( x.x is an apple in the row and x is dark,<br />
x.x is leftmost) = x.x is an apple in the row and<br />
x is dark and x is leftmost<br />
N'<br />
PM( x.x is an apple in the row,<br />
x.x is leftmost) =<br />
x.x is an apple in the row and x is dark<br />
dark N' <br />
<br />
x.x is an apple in the row<br />
apple in the row<br />
03.06.20<strong>08</strong> Slides based on semantics textbook from I. Heim & A. Kratzer<br />
and lecture notes from M. Krifka<br />
17
(ii) the leftmost dark apple in the row<br />
b 1 b 2 b 3 b 4 b 5 b 6<br />
(i) (ii)<br />
(iii) = undefined<br />
̌<br />
<br />
(i) the leftmost apple in the row<br />
(ii) the leftmost dark apple in the row<br />
(iii) the apple that is both leftmost in the row and dark<br />
03.06.20<strong>08</strong> Slides based on semantics textbook from I. Heim & A. Kratzer<br />
and lecture notes from M. Krifka<br />
18
(iii) the apple that is both leftmost in<br />
the row and dark<br />
b 1 b 2 b 3 b 4 b 5 b 6<br />
(i) (ii)<br />
(iii) = undefined<br />
̌<br />
<br />
̌<br />
(i) the leftmost apple in the row<br />
(ii) the leftmost dark apple in the row<br />
(iii) the apple that is both leftmost in the row and dark<br />
03.06.20<strong>08</strong> Slides based on semantics textbook from I. Heim & A. Kratzer<br />
and lecture notes from M. Krifka<br />
19
What we derive so far<br />
• our one-place predicate treatment of “leftmost” is<br />
appropriate for (i) and (iii)<br />
• but “the leftmost dark apple in the row” (ii) has the<br />
same truth-conditions as “the apple that is both<br />
leftmost in the row and dark” (iii) and thus goes<br />
against our intuitions<br />
03.06.20<strong>08</strong> Slides based on semantics textbook from I. Heim & A. Kratzer<br />
and lecture notes from M. Krifka<br />
20
Lexical Semantics of leftmost<br />
• It has to be a function of type D <br />
• ’leftmost÷ = λP c D . [λx c D e . P(x) and x is the leftmost<br />
element among the elements of {y: P(y)}]<br />
• “the leftmost dark apple in the row” denotes the leftmost apple<br />
in the row of dark apples<br />
03.06.20<strong>08</strong> Slides based on semantics textbook from I. Heim & A. Kratzer<br />
and lecture notes from M. Krifka<br />
21
(ii) the leftmost dark apple in the row<br />
the unique y st. y is an apple in the row and y is dark and y is the leftmost<br />
element among the elements of {y: y is an apple in the row and y is dark}]<br />
DP P x.P(x) and x is the leftmost element<br />
among the elements of {y: P(y)}<br />
( x.x is an apple in the row and x is dark)<br />
the NP = x.x is an apple in the row and x is dark and<br />
<br />
x is the leftmost element among the elements<br />
of {y: y is an apple in the row and y is dark}<br />
leftmost<br />
<br />
N'<br />
x.x is an apple in the row and x is dark<br />
dark<br />
<br />
N' <br />
x.x is an apple in the row<br />
apple in the row<br />
03.06.20<strong>08</strong> Slides based on semantics textbook from I. Heim & A. Kratzer<br />
and lecture notes from M. Krifka<br />
22
(ii) the leftmost dark apple in the row<br />
b 1 b 2 b 3 b 4 b 5 b 6<br />
(ii) (ii)<br />
(iii) = undefined<br />
̌<br />
(i) the leftmost apple in the row<br />
(ii) the leftmost dark apple in the row<br />
(iii) the apple that is both leftmost in the row and dark<br />
03.06.20<strong>08</strong> Slides based on semantics textbook from I. Heim & A. Kratzer<br />
and lecture notes from M. Krifka<br />
23
Quantification<br />
Quantification<br />
03.06.20<strong>08</strong> Slides based on semantics textbook from I. Heim & A. Kratzer<br />
and lecture notes from M. Krifka<br />
24
More DPs<br />
Do all DPs behave like proper names or definite descriptions?<br />
S <br />
DP <br />
VP <br />
Fred<br />
Fred<br />
walks<br />
λx ∈ D e<br />
.x walks<br />
’Fred walks ÷ = 1 iff λx ∈D e<br />
. x walks(Fred)<br />
iff Fred ∈ walk<br />
03.06.20<strong>08</strong> Slides based on semantics textbook from I. Heim & A. Kratzer<br />
and lecture notes from M. Krifka<br />
25
More DPs<br />
Do all DPs behave like proper names or definite descriptions?<br />
S <br />
DP <br />
VP <br />
D <br />
NP <br />
the man walks<br />
λf∈D the unique… λx ∈ D e .x is a man λx ∈ D e .x walks<br />
03.06.20<strong>08</strong> Slides based on semantics textbook from I. Heim & A. Kratzer<br />
and lecture notes from M. Krifka<br />
26
More DPs<br />
A woman<br />
Somebody<br />
Everybody<br />
Few people<br />
Nobody<br />
At most two people<br />
– an arbitrary individual?<br />
– every individual? A set?<br />
– an arbitrary small set?<br />
– no individual? The empty set?<br />
– an arbitrary set of<br />
at most two people?<br />
03.06.20<strong>08</strong> Slides based on semantics textbook from I. Heim & A. Kratzer<br />
and lecture notes from M. Krifka<br />
28
Quantification<br />
Quantificational DPs<br />
as Individuals<br />
03.06.20<strong>08</strong> Slides based on semantics textbook from I. Heim & A. Kratzer<br />
and lecture notes from M. Krifka<br />
29
Quantifiers as Individuals?<br />
John lives in Osnabrück<br />
u John lives in Germany<br />
(i)<br />
’ John ÷ ∈ D e<br />
(ii) ’ lives in Osnabrück ÷ ⊆ ’ lives in Germany ÷<br />
(iii) F char<br />
(x) = 1 iff x ∈ F<br />
Nobody lives in Osnabrück<br />
^ Nobody lives in Germany<br />
At most two people live in OS<br />
^ At most two people live in Germany<br />
Few people live in Osnabrück<br />
^ Few people live in Germany<br />
Intuitively invalid, but could be derived if the DPs were of type e!<br />
03.06.20<strong>08</strong> Slides based on semantics textbook from I. Heim & A. Kratzer<br />
and lecture notes from M. Krifka<br />
30
Quantifiers as Individuals?<br />
John is in this room<br />
u It’s not the case: John is outside this room<br />
(i)<br />
(ii)<br />
’ John ÷ ∈ D e<br />
’ is in this room ÷ ∩ ’ is outside this room ÷ = ∅<br />
(iii) F(x) = 1 iff x ∈ F<br />
A woman is in this room<br />
^ It’s not the case: a woman is outside this room<br />
Somebody is in this room<br />
^ It’s not the case: somebody is outside this room<br />
Three people are in this room<br />
^ It’s not the case: three people are outside this room<br />
Intuitively invalid, but could be derived if the DPs were of type e!<br />
03.06.20<strong>08</strong> Slides based on semantics textbook from I. Heim & A. Kratzer<br />
and lecture notes from M. Krifka<br />
31
Quantifiers as Individuals?<br />
Tautological (= always true) statement:<br />
(i)<br />
(ii)<br />
John is over 30 years old or John is under 40 years old<br />
’ John ÷ ∈ D e<br />
’ be over 30 years old ÷ ∪ ’ be under 40 years old ÷ = D e<br />
(iii) F(x) = 1 iff x ∈ F<br />
Everybody is over 30 years old or everybody is under 40 years old<br />
At most three people are over 30 years old or at most three people are under 40<br />
years old<br />
Intuitively non-tautological, but would be derived as tautology if the<br />
DPs were of type e!<br />
03.06.20<strong>08</strong> Slides based on semantics textbook from I. Heim & A. Kratzer<br />
and lecture notes from M. Krifka<br />
32
Quantification<br />
Quantificational DPs<br />
as Sets<br />
03.06.20<strong>08</strong> Slides based on semantics textbook from I. Heim & A. Kratzer<br />
and lecture notes from M. Krifka<br />
33
Quantifiers as Sets?<br />
The problems indicate: DPs do (in general) not denote an individual of<br />
type e. So maybe they denote sets of individuals (i.e. they are of type<br />
)?<br />
’ Fred ÷ = { Fred }<br />
’ everything ÷ = D e<br />
’ nothing ÷ = ∅<br />
’ at most 2 people ÷ = an arbitrary set of at most 2 people<br />
Compositional rules (or the semantics of verbs) has to be changed<br />
accordingly. Assume:<br />
’S ÷ = ’ DP VP ÷ = 1<br />
iff ’ DP ÷ ⊆ ’ VP ÷<br />
Alternatively, change the semantics of the<br />
VP:<br />
’ lives in Osnabrück ÷ =<br />
λX ∈ Pow(D). X ⊆ {y: y lives in Osnabrück}<br />
03.06.20<strong>08</strong> Slides based on semantics textbook from I. Heim & A. Kratzer<br />
and lecture notes from M. Krifka<br />
34
Does this proposal yield adequate results for the following<br />
sentences?<br />
S<br />
Quantifiers as Sets?<br />
DP<br />
N<br />
Fred<br />
VP<br />
V<br />
lives in Osnabrück<br />
S<br />
{ Fred } ⊆ {y: y lives in Osnabrück }<br />
iff Fred lives in Osnabrück <br />
DP<br />
Everybody<br />
VP<br />
V<br />
D e ⊆ {y: y lives in Osnabrück }<br />
iff every individual lives in Osnabrück <br />
lives in Osnabrück<br />
03.06.20<strong>08</strong> Slides based on semantics textbook from I. Heim & A. Kratzer<br />
and lecture notes from M. Krifka<br />
35
Quantifiers as Sets?<br />
Does this proposal yield adequate results for the following<br />
sentences?<br />
DP<br />
Nobody<br />
S<br />
VP<br />
V<br />
∅ ⊆ {y: y lives in Osnabrück }<br />
always true! <br />
lives in Osnabrück<br />
DP<br />
At most 2 people<br />
S<br />
VP<br />
V<br />
an arbitrary set of at most 2 people<br />
⊆ {y: y lives in Osnabrück }<br />
also always true! <br />
live in Osnabrück<br />
03.06.20<strong>08</strong> Slides based on semantics textbook from I. Heim & A. Kratzer<br />
and lecture notes from M. Krifka<br />
36
Quantifiers as Sets?<br />
What about unintuitive inferences?<br />
Nobody lives in Osnabrück ^ Nobody lives in Germany<br />
Still predicted!<br />
∅ ⊆ {y: y lives in Osnabrück } ⊆ {y: y lives in Germany }<br />
03.06.20<strong>08</strong> Slides based on semantics textbook from I. Heim & A. Kratzer<br />
and lecture notes from M. Krifka<br />
37
Quantification<br />
Quantificational DPs<br />
as Sets of Sets<br />
03.06.20<strong>08</strong> Slides based on semantics textbook from I. Heim & A. Kratzer<br />
and lecture notes from M. Krifka<br />
38
Solution: Change Type of DPs<br />
So far:<br />
VP (DP )<br />
S<br />
<br />
DP<br />
<br />
VP<br />
<br />
… how about:<br />
DP (VP )<br />
S<br />
<br />
DP<br />
<br />
VP<br />
<br />
03.06.20<strong>08</strong> Slides based on semantics textbook from I. Heim & A. Kratzer<br />
and lecture notes from M. Krifka<br />
39
What does it mean to change the type of DPs<br />
from to ?<br />
What sort of things are of the type ?<br />
functions are properties of properties,<br />
i.e. 2nd order properties<br />
For instance:<br />
At least 2 people walk d<br />
Everybody walks d<br />
Properties of Properties<br />
the property of walking is a property<br />
that at least 2 people have.<br />
the property of walking is a property<br />
that everybody has.<br />
The walk property is in the set of properties that 2 people<br />
have/everybody has.<br />
03.06.20<strong>08</strong> Slides based on semantics textbook from I. Heim & A. Kratzer<br />
and lecture notes from M. Krifka<br />
40
Functional View vs. Set View<br />
A Generalized Quantifier (GQ) is a function from functions to truth<br />
values:<br />
’ nothing ÷ = λf ∈ D <br />
. there is no x∈D e<br />
such that f(x) = 1<br />
’ something ÷ = λf ∈ D <br />
. there is some x∈D e<br />
such that f(x) = 1<br />
’ everything ÷ = λf ∈ D <br />
. for all x∈D e<br />
: f(x) = 1<br />
A different view of the same thing: A GQ is a set of sets<br />
’ nothing ÷ = { X ∈ Pow(D) : X = ∅ }<br />
’ something ÷ = { X ∈ Pow(D) : X ≠ ∅ }<br />
’everything ÷ = { X ∈ Pow(D) : X = D }<br />
Definitions for truth and falsity have to be amended accordingly:<br />
’ S ÷ = ’ DP VP ÷ = 1 iff ’ VP ÷ ∈ ’ DP ÷<br />
03.06.20<strong>08</strong> Slides based on semantics textbook from I. Heim & A. Kratzer<br />
and lecture notes from M. Krifka<br />
41
Quantifiers as Sets of Sets<br />
GQs as sets of sets:<br />
’ no woman ÷ = { X ∈ Pow(D) : woman ∩ X = ∅ }<br />
’ nobody ÷ = { X ∈ Pow(D) : people ∩ X = ∅ }<br />
’ a man ÷ = { X ∈ Pow(D) : man ∩ X ≠ ∅ }<br />
’ somebody ÷ = { X ∈ Pow(D) : people ∩ X ≠ ∅ }<br />
’ every dog ÷ = { X ∈ Pow(D) : dog ⊆ X }<br />
’ everybody ÷ = { X ∈ Pow(D) : people ⊆ X }<br />
’ at least 2 people÷ = { X ∈ Pow(D) : |X ∩ people| ≥ 2 }<br />
’ at most 2 people÷ = { X ∈ Pow(D) : |X ∩ people| ≤ 2 }<br />
03.06.20<strong>08</strong> Slides based on semantics textbook from I. Heim & A. Kratzer<br />
and lecture notes from M. Krifka<br />
42
Problematic Cases Solved<br />
At most 2 people live in Osnabrück.<br />
’ live in Osnabrück ÷<br />
’ at most 2 people ÷<br />
= { X ∈ Pow(D) : |X ∩ people| ≤ 2 }<br />
Only true iff at most 2 people<br />
and no more live in Osnabrück. <br />
03.06.20<strong>08</strong> Slides based on semantics textbook from I. Heim & A. Kratzer<br />
and lecture notes from M. Krifka<br />
43
Problematic Cases Solved<br />
Nobody lives in Osnabrück.<br />
’ live in Osnabrück ÷<br />
’ Nobody ÷<br />
= { X ∈ Pow(D) : X ∩ people = ∅ }<br />
Not tautological, but only true iff<br />
nobody lives in Osnabrück. <br />
03.06.20<strong>08</strong> Slides based on semantics textbook from I. Heim & A. Kratzer<br />
and lecture notes from M. Krifka<br />
44
Solving the Inference Problem<br />
At most 2 people live in Osnabrück ^<br />
At most 2 people live in Germany<br />
’ live in Osnabrück ÷<br />
’ at most 2 people ÷<br />
’ live in Germany ÷<br />
03.06.20<strong>08</strong> Slides based on semantics textbook from I. Heim & A. Kratzer<br />
and lecture notes from M. Krifka<br />
45
Solving the Inference Problem<br />
Somebody is in this room<br />
^ It is not the case: somebody is outside this room<br />
’ be in this room ÷<br />
’ somebody ÷<br />
’ be outside this room ÷<br />
03.06.20<strong>08</strong> Slides based on semantics textbook from I. Heim & A. Kratzer<br />
and lecture notes from M. Krifka<br />
46
Quantification<br />
Quantificational<br />
Determiners<br />
03.06.20<strong>08</strong> Slides based on semantics textbook from I. Heim & A. Kratzer<br />
and lecture notes from M. Krifka<br />
47
Quantificational Determiners<br />
Given that quantifying DPs have lexical entries like these:<br />
’ nothing÷ = λf ∈ D . there is no x∈D e such that f(x) = 1<br />
’ no woman ÷ = λf ∈ D . there is no x∈D e such that x is a woman<br />
& f(x) = 1<br />
What are the lexical entries for determiners like no, a, every?<br />
S <br />
DP <br />
VP <br />
D <br />
no<br />
NP <br />
man sleeps<br />
03.06.20<strong>08</strong> Slides based on semantics textbook from I. Heim & A. Kratzer<br />
and lecture notes from M. Krifka<br />
48
Quantificational Determiners:<br />
Functional View<br />
’ no ÷ = λf ∈ D . [λg ∈ D . . there is no x ∈ D e such that<br />
f(x) = 1 & g(x) = 1]<br />
’ a ÷ = λf ∈ D . [λg ∈ D . there is some x ∈ D e such that<br />
f(x) = 1 & g(x) = 1]<br />
’ every ÷ = λf ∈ D . [λg ∈ D . for all x ∈ D e such that<br />
f(x) = 1, g(x) = 1]<br />
03.06.20<strong>08</strong> Slides based on semantics textbook from I. Heim & A. Kratzer<br />
and lecture notes from M. Krifka<br />
49
Derivation of Truth Conditions<br />
Computing the truth conditions for A man left<br />
S <br />
there is some x ∈ D e such that x is a man and x left<br />
DP ><br />
λg ∈ D . there is some x ∈ D e such that x is a man & g(x) = 1<br />
D <br />
a<br />
λf ∈ D . [λg ∈ D .<br />
there is some x ∈ D e<br />
such that f(x) = 1 & g(x) = 1]<br />
NP <br />
man<br />
Py ∈ D e . y is a man<br />
03.06.20<strong>08</strong> Slides based on semantics textbook from I. Heim & A. Kratzer<br />
and lecture notes from M. Krifka<br />
VP <br />
left<br />
Pz ∈ D e . z left<br />
50
Quantif. Ds: Relational View<br />
Recall the ‘set of sets’ view on generalized quantifiers, e.g.<br />
’ something ÷ = { X ∈ Pow(D) : X ≠ ∅ }<br />
The same works for GQs corresponding to DPs in general:<br />
’ no woman ÷ = { X ∈ Pow(D) : woman ∩ X = ∅ }<br />
’ a man ÷ = { X ∈ Pow(D) : man ∩ X ≠ ∅ }<br />
’ every dog ÷ = { X ∈ Pow(D) : dog ⊆ X }<br />
Under this view, determiners denote relations between sets:<br />
’ no ÷ = { ∈ Pow(D) % Pow(D): A ∩ B = ∅ }<br />
’ a ÷ = { ∈ Pow(D) % Pow(D): A ∩ B ≠ ∅ }<br />
’ every ÷ = { ∈ Pow(D) % Pow(D): A ⊆ B }<br />
03.06.20<strong>08</strong> Slides based on semantics textbook from I. Heim & A. Kratzer<br />
and lecture notes from M. Krifka<br />
51
Functional and Relational View<br />
Truth conditions under the relational and the functional view:<br />
’ a man left ÷ = 1 b relational view<br />
iff ∈ ’ a ÷<br />
iff ∈ { ∈ Pow(D) % Pow(D): A ∩ B ≠ ∅ }<br />
iff man ∩ left ≠ ∅<br />
iff there is some x ∈ D e<br />
such that x ∈ man and x ∈ left<br />
iff there is some x ∈ D e<br />
such that x is a man and x left<br />
iff λg ∈ D <br />
[there is some x ∈ D e<br />
such that<br />
x is a man & g(x) = 1](left)<br />
iff λf ∈ D <br />
[λg ∈ D <br />
[there is some x ∈ D e<br />
such that<br />
f(x) = 1 & g(x) = 1](man)(left)<br />
iff (’ a ÷(’ man ÷))(’ left ÷) = 1<br />
03.06.20<strong>08</strong> Slides based on semantics textbook from I. Heim & A. Kratzer<br />
and lecture notes from M. Krifka<br />
b functional view<br />
52
Notations<br />
• People usually refer to a quantificational DP such as every<br />
woman/someone/most horses (of type ) as<br />
Generalized Quantifier (GQ) or simply as quantifier.<br />
• The quantificational determiner (of type<br />
) is sometimes also called a quantifier.<br />
• We say that in<br />
Every horse sleeps<br />
horse is the restrictor of the quantificational determiner<br />
every and sleeps is the nucleus or (nuclear) scope.<br />
03.06.20<strong>08</strong> Slides based on semantics textbook from I. Heim & A. Kratzer<br />
and lecture notes from M. Krifka<br />
53
Quantification<br />
Formal Properties of<br />
Quantifiers<br />
03.06.20<strong>08</strong> Slides based on semantics textbook from I. Heim & A. Kratzer<br />
and lecture notes from M. Krifka<br />
54
A determiner D can be classified according to certain formal properties of its<br />
meaning under the relational view ’ D ÷.<br />
Symmetry<br />
A determiner D is called symmetric<br />
iff for all sets A and B: if ∈ ’ D ÷ then ∈ ’ D ÷<br />
For instance: is a symmetric?<br />
Informal check via natural language:<br />
Symmetry<br />
a German won an academy award<br />
an academy award winner was German<br />
and hence<br />
for particular A (being German) and B (being AA winner)<br />
Formal proof (for general A and B):<br />
suppose A and B are sets such that ∈ ’ a ÷<br />
hence A ∩ B ≠ ∅ and likewise B ∩ A ≠ ∅<br />
therefore ∈ ’ a ÷<br />
03.06.20<strong>08</strong> Slides based on semantics textbook from I. Heim & A. Kratzer<br />
and lecture notes from M. Krifka<br />
55
Symmetry<br />
Another example: Is every symmetric?<br />
Informal check via natural language:<br />
every German nominee won an AA<br />
every AA winner was a German nominee<br />
for particular A (being German nominee) and B (being AA winner)<br />
From the first sentence one cannot conclude to the second<br />
Formal proof (for general A and B):<br />
suppose A and B are sets such that ∈ ’ every ÷<br />
hence A ⊆ B,<br />
but then B ⊆ A only if A = B,<br />
therefore v ’ every ÷ unless A = B<br />
Conclusion: a is symmetric, but every is not.<br />
03.06.20<strong>08</strong> Slides based on semantics textbook from I. Heim & A. Kratzer<br />
and lecture notes from M. Krifka<br />
56
Monotonicity<br />
Monotonicity<br />
Different DPs allow for different inference patterns.<br />
(a) A bachelor smoked cigars u A man smoked cigars<br />
(b) A bachelor smoked cigars u A bachelor smoked<br />
(c) A bachelor smoked cigars ^ A young bachelor smoked cigars<br />
(d) A bachelor smoked cigars ^ A bachelor smoked Cuban cigars<br />
(a) Every bachelor smoked cigars ^ Every man smoked cigars<br />
(b) Every bachelor smoked cigars u Every bachelor smoked<br />
(c) Every bachelor smoked cigars u Every young bachelor smoked cigars<br />
(d) Every bachelor smoked cigars ^ Every bachelor smoked Cuban cigars<br />
03.06.20<strong>08</strong> Slides based on semantics textbook from I. Heim & A. Kratzer<br />
and lecture notes from M. Krifka<br />
57
Monotonicity<br />
Monotonicity<br />
(a) No bachelor smoked cigars ^ No man smoked cigars<br />
(b) No bachelor smoked cigars ^ No bachelor smoked<br />
(c) No bachelor smoked cigars u No young bachelor smoked cigars<br />
(d) No bachelor smoked cigars u No bachelor smoked Cuban cigars<br />
Important Observation:<br />
In the (a) cases, the first argument of the determiner was enlarged:<br />
bachelor ⊆ man<br />
In the (b) cases, the second argument of the determiner was enlarged:<br />
smoke cigars ⊆ smoke<br />
In the (c) cases, the first argument of the determiner was reduced:<br />
bachelor r young bachelor<br />
In the (d) cases, the second argument of the determiner was reduced:<br />
smoke cigars r smoke Cuban cigars<br />
03.06.20<strong>08</strong> Slides based on semantics textbook from I. Heim & A. Kratzer<br />
and lecture notes from M. Krifka<br />
58
Monotonicity<br />
Monotonicity<br />
Determiners are classified according to the inference patterns they<br />
allow.<br />
Let A, B, C be sets such that A ⊆ B . Then a determiner D is called<br />
left upward monotone<br />
if ∈ ’ D ÷ then ∈ ’ D ÷<br />
left downward monotone<br />
if ∈ ’ D ÷ then ∈ ’ D ÷<br />
right upward monotone<br />
if ∈ ’ D ÷ then ∈ ’ D ÷<br />
right downward monotone<br />
if ∈ ’ D ÷ then ∈ ’ D ÷<br />
(a) cases<br />
(b) cases<br />
(c) cases<br />
(d) cases<br />
03.06.20<strong>08</strong> Slides based on semantics textbook from I. Heim & A. Kratzer<br />
and lecture notes from M. Krifka<br />
59
Monotonicity<br />
Monotonicity<br />
The examples above illustrate:<br />
a is left upward and right upward monotone<br />
every is left downward and right upward monotone<br />
no is left downward and right downward monotone<br />
Determiners that are neither upward nor downward monotone<br />
in one argument are called non-monotone in that argument.<br />
03.06.20<strong>08</strong> Slides based on semantics textbook from I. Heim & A. Kratzer<br />
and lecture notes from M. Krifka<br />
60
Homework<br />
To be handed in by Saturday next week (June 14th).<br />
– Read Chapters 6 and 7 of Heim & Kratzer’s textbook and go through the<br />
lecture notes again.<br />
– H&K p. 198: Exercise (calculating truth-conditions of (7’)).<br />
– It is shown in the textbook (pp.159-160) that the Aristotelian<br />
understanding of the determiners all, some, no differs from the "modern"<br />
understanding. Peter Strawson (cf. p. 161 of the textbook) proposed a<br />
view of the semantics of these determiners that is intended to save the<br />
Aristotelian interpretation.<br />
(a)<br />
(b)<br />
(c)<br />
(d)<br />
Describe the Aristotelian and the modern semantics of the<br />
determiners all, some, no (using material from the textbook).<br />
Show where precisely there is a conflict.<br />
Describe Strawson's idea for solving the conflict.<br />
Give your own assessment of Strawson's position and discuss any<br />
consequences you find interesting.<br />
03.06.20<strong>08</strong> Slides based on semantics textbook from I. Heim & A. Kratzer<br />
and lecture notes from M. Krifka<br />
61
Thank you!<br />
Thank you!<br />
03.06.20<strong>08</strong> Slides based on semantics textbook from I. Heim & A. Kratzer<br />
and lecture notes from M. Krifka<br />
62