Lexical Resource Semantics - User contributions [en]

Wiki-ch2

2016-04-03T18:31:00Z

Suzanne:

= Additional Wiki pages for Chapter 2 =

== Models ==

{{CreatedByStudents1213}} Involved participants: [[User:Lisa| Lisa]], [[User:Marthe| Marthe]], [[User:Elisabeth.krall| Elisabeth]], [[User:IsaB|Isabelle]].

Watch a short podcast what first-order models look like.

<embedvideo service="youtube" dimensions="400">http://youtu.be/4a3mXelw7H4</embedvideo>

Based on this podcast, we can define a model as follows:

* Universe: ''U'' = {''LittleRedRidingHood'', ''Grandmother'', ''Wolf''}<br />
* Properties: <br />''red-hood'' = { < ''x''> | ''x'' wears a read hood } = { <''LittleRedRidingHood''> }<br />''female'' = { <''x''> | ''x'' is female } = { <''LittleRedRidingHood''>, <''Grandmother''> }<br />''big-mouth'' = { <''x''> | ''x'' has a big mouth } = { <''Wolf''> }<br />''live-in-forest'' = { < ''x''> | ''x'' lives in the forest } = { <''Grandmother''>, <''Wolf''>}<br />
* Relations:<br /> ''grand-child-of'' = { <''x'',''y''> | ''x'' is ''y'' 's grandchild } = { <''LittleRedRidingHood'',''Grandmother'' > }<br />''afternoon-snack-of'' = { <''x'',''y''> | ''x'' is ''y'' 's afternoon snack } = { <''LittleRedRidingHood'',''Wolf'' > }

== Truth tables ==
{{CreatedByStudents1213}} Involved participants: [[User:Lisa| Lisa]], [[User:Marthe| Marthe]], [[User:Elisabeth.krall| Elisabeth]], [[User:IsaB|Isabelle]].

=== Truth tables for connectives ===

==== AND (&and;) ====

Symbol: &and; <br />
Sentence: Harry is a student and Snape is a teacher. <br />
Formulae: '''student'''('''harry''') &and; '''teacher'''('''snape''')

A conjunction ''p'' &and; ''q'' it true if and only if ''p'' is true and ''q'' is true.

'''Truthtable AND'''

[[File:Truthtable_AND1.png|400px]]

==== OR (&or;) ====

Symbol: &or; <br />
Sentence: Harry is a student or Snape is a teacher. <br />
Formulae: '''student'''('''harry''') &or; '''teacher'''('''snape''')

A disjunction ''p'' &or; ''q'' is true if and only if ''p'' is true or ''q'' is true (or both).

'''Truthtable OR'''

[[File:Truthtable_OR1.png|400px]]

==== IF/THEN (⊃, →) ====

Symbol: ⊃, → (''Note: We use the symbol ⊃ in the textbook as it is more common in the logical literature.'')<br />
Sentence: If Harry is a student then Snape is a teacher. <br />
Formula: '''student'''('''harry''') ⊃ '''teacher'''('''snape''')

An implication ''p'' ⊃ ''q'' is true if and only if ''p'' is false or ''q'' is true (or both).<br />
''In other words:'' An implication ''p'' ⊃ ''q'' is true if and only if whenever ''p'' is true, ''q'' is true as well.

'''Truthtable IF/THEN'''

[[File:Truthtable_IF_THEN2.png|400px]]

==== NOT (¬) ====

Symbol: ¬ <br />
Sentence: Harry is not a student. <br />
Formula: ¬'''student'''('''harry''')

A negated formula ¬''p'' is true if and only if ''p'' is false.

''Example:''
Only if '''student'''('''harry''') is ''false'', ¬'''student'''('''harry''') is ''true''.

'''Truthtable NOT'''

[[File:Truthtable_NOT.png|300px]]

=== Truth tables for complex formulae ===

Truth tables are also useful to compute the truth value of complex formulae.
This is shown in the following podcast, created by [[User:Lisa|Lisa Günthner]].

<embedvideo service="youtube" dimensions="400">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWdltj5Mqdc</embedvideo>

= Videos with example computations =

== Atomic formulae ==

The following video presents the step-by-step computation of the truth value of two atomic formulae.
The example uses a model based on Shakespeare's play ''Macbeth''.
The two formulae are:
* '''kill(macbeth,duncan)'''
* '''kill(lady-macbeth,macbet)'''

<embedvideo service="youtube" dimensions="400">http://youtu.be/8HGCB9urmbg</embedvideo>

== Formulae with connectives ==

The following video presents the step-by-step computation of the truth value of two formulae with connectives.
The example uses a model based on Shakespeare's play ''Macbeth''.
The two formulae are:
* '''¬ king(lady-macbeth)'''
* '''king(duncan) &or; king(lady-macbeth)'''

<embedvideo service="youtube" dimensions="400">http://youtu.be/ABXPMzHFYxU</embedvideo>


The next video shows how the truth value of a more complex formula can be computed. The example contains two connectives:

'''kill(malcom,lady-macbeth) &or; ¬thane(macbeth)'''

The video shows two different methods: top down and bottom up.

<embedvideo service="youtube" dimensions="400">http://youtu.be/C1rjU104R54</embedvideo>

= Logical determiners/quantifiers =

<embedvideo service="youtube" dimensions="400">http://youtu.be/5PRL23XcaFY</embedvideo>


= Links =

== Predicate logic in the ''Virtual Linguistics Campus'' ==

There are short lectures by Jürgen Hanke ([http://linguistics.online.uni-marburg.de/ Virtual Linguistics Campus]) related to the topics of Chapter 2:
* [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhodKMPwShc Predicates and their arguments]
* [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hg-h-6ZiEPI Logical connectives]
* [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWGHfcaOT1s Quantifiers] ("∀" and "∃")
** Note: The video mentions the terms "restrictor" and "scope" of a quantifier but uses the conventional first-order representation of quantifiers. This means that the restrictor and the scope are linked by an implication ("⊃") in the case of a universal quantifier and by a conjunction ("&and;") in the case of the existential quantifier.<br /> So, where we write: ∀ x (φ : ψ), the traditional notation is: ∀ x (φ ⊃ ψ),<br /> and where we write ∃ x (φ : ψ), the traditional notation is ∃ x (φ &and; ψ)
** Note: In the video, the symbol "¬" is called "the negative quantifier". This is to be seen as short hand for "¬∃"

== Pine's ''Essential Logic: Basic Reasoning Skills for the 21st Century'' ==

[http://home.honolulu.hawaii.edu/~pine/ Ronald C. Pine] is profesor of philosophy at the [http://www2.honolulu.hawaii.edu/ Honolulu Community College]. He has put online a number of courses and a version of his book on logic, entitled ''Essential Logic: Basic Reasoning Skills for the 21st Century'':

Pine, Ronald C.: ''Essential Logic: Basic Reasoning Skills for the 21st Century''. Harcourt, 1996; Oxford University Press, 2001; online edition, 2011.<br />URL: http://home.honolulu.hawaii.edu/~pine/EL/Essential-Logic.html

The book's content goes far beyond what we cover in our textbook.

<hr />
Back to
* the material for [[Textbook-chapters#Chapter_2:_Predicate_logic|chapter 2]]
* the overview over [[Textbook-chapters|all chapters]]

Wiki-ch1

2016-04-03T18:27:33Z

Suzanne: /* Inference relations */

= Basic notions in semantics =

== Semantics relations ==

=== Semantic relations between words ===

* General information
* Special relations: [[Material on Antonymy]]

=== Semantics relations between sentences ===

==== Paraphrase ====

==== Entailment ====

==== Contradiction ====

==== Links ====

* [http://amarris.homestead.com/files/paraphrase.html Online quiz on paraphrases] (last visited July 26, 2013)<br /> This page is an EFL resource for students in the medical sector. Some examples include synonyms.

== Ambiguity ==

There is an overview page in which [[Types_of_ambiguity|types of ambiguity]] are characterized.

== Inference relations ==

=== Entailment ===

=== Implicature ===

{{CreatedByStudents1213}}<br />''Involved participants: [[User:Slc|Stephanie C.]], [[User:Stephie_R.|Stephie R.]], [[User:Jennifer_Borchert|Jennifer Borchert]], [[User:Anna_P.|Anne P.]]''

The following video explains the five central charateristics of implicatures with a number of examples.

There are some minor corrections on the video:
* ''inference'' is pronounced [ˈɪnfərəns]
* around 1:25, defeasibility: The added ''if'' clause illustrates the cancellation of an implicature, but this is different from using a sentence inside an ''if'' clause (this would be ''If John has three cows, he will have enough milk for his family.''

<embedvideo service="youtube" dimensions="400">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUtSBL3wWZ0&feature=youtu.be</embedvideo><br>

'''Group 4 - The 5 Characteristic Properties of Implicatures'''<br>

Voice-over: [[User:Jennifer_Borchert|Jennifer Borchert]]<br>
Editing: [[User:Anna_P.|Anna P.]], [[User:Slc|Stephanie C.]], [[User:Stephie_R.|Stephie R.]]<br>
References: Levinson, Stephen C (1997): ''Pragmatics''. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.<br>
Music: by Dan-O at [http://www.DanoSongs.com DanoSongs.com]
<br><br>

=== Presupposition ===

{{CreatedByStudents1213}}<br />''Involved participants: [[User:Katharina_D|Katharina Diesinger]] and [[User:Caterina|Caterina Marinacci]]''

Watch the following video to get a basic definition and an example.

<embedvideo service="youtube" dimensions="400">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vb8c7pEEEYg</embedvideo>

= Links =

There are a number of related short lectures by Jürgen Handke ([http://linguistics.online.uni-marburg.de/ Virtual Linguistics Campus], Marburg):
(''Note:'' The notation and the definitions used in these lectures may differ from the one used in our textbook.)

* [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONV38l39PsE Word meaning]
* Vagueness and ambiguity:
** [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYYUteTBtxo Ambiguity]
** [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sl8Shl0jaak Vagueness]
** [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qmy1BlurD48 Telling apart ambiguity and vagueness]

* Inference:
** [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLt5NMZYRzM Entailment]

Additional Links:
* Ambiguity: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h-J6i9qgAog

<hr />
Back to
* the material for [[Textbook-chapters#Chapter_2:_Predicate_logic|chapter 2]]
* the overview over [[Textbook-chapters|all chapters]]

Types of ambiguity

2016-04-03T18:25:23Z

Suzanne: /* Scope ambiguity */

Ambiguity is widespread in natural language. In most cases, however, we do not even notice the ambiguity in everyday life. However, these ambiguities are real and it is very important to understand what kinds of ambiguity exist in natural language. This will also help us to determine the factors (grammatical and contextual) which allow us to communicate without being lost in ambiguity all the time.

== Ambiguity vs. vagueness ==

== Ambiguity vs. polysemy ==

== Ambiguity ==

=== Lexical ambiguity ===
{{CreatedByStudents1213}}<br />Involved participants: [[User:Nicki| Nicki]], [[User:Marc_M| Marc M]], [[User:Leo| Leo]], [[User:Anna_Böcher| Anna Böcher]], [[User:Lorena| Lorena]]

[[Glossary:Lexical_Ambiguity|Lexical ambiguity]] is defined as words having multiple meanings.

Example: ''Is life worth living? It depends on the liver.''

Here is a short and entertaining podcast that illustrates the phenomenon of lexical ambiguity.


<embedvideo service="youtube" dimensions="400">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SyyqkS1aofI</embedvideo>

=== Structural ambiguity ===

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LUrgynlkXVA Youtube video] showing a scene from the movie ''Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang'' containing a structural ambiguity.

=== Scope ambiguity ===

See the glossary entry on [[Glossary:Scope_Ambiguity|scope ambiguity]].

Here is a short and entertaining podcast that illustrates the phenomenon of lexical ambiguity.

<embedvideo service="youtube" dimensions="400">http://youtu.be/6c8TwAdvr9U</embedvideo>

=== Collective/distributive ambiguity ===

=== Referential ambiguity ===

== References and links ==

=== Related exercises ===

* [[Determine_the_type_of_ambiguity|Determine the type of ambiguity]]

=== References ===

* Wasow, Thomas, Amy Perfors and David Beaver (2005): The Puzzle of Ambiguity. In C. Orhan Orgun and Peter Sells (eds): ''Morphology and The Web of Grammar: Essays in Memory of Steven G. Lapointe''. Stanford: CSLI Publications. 265-282.<br />Link to the preprint version on Thomas Wasow's homepage: [http://www.stanford.edu/~wasow/Lapointe.pdf www.stanford.edu/~wasow/Lapointe.pdf] (checked April 11, 2013).
* Zwicky, Arnold and Jerrold Sadock (1975): Ambiguity Tests and How to Fail Them. In (Syntax and Semantics, 1975). In John P. Kimball (ed): ''Syntax and Semantics'', Vol. 4. New York: Academic Press. 1-36.<br />Link to the preprint version on Arnold Zwicky's homepage: [http://stanford.edu/~zwicky/ambiguity-test-and-how-to-fail-them.pdf stanford.edu/~zwicky/ambiguity-test-and-how-to-fail-them.pdf] (checked April 11, 2013)

=== Links ===

* [http://cs.nyu.edu/faculty/davise/ Ernest Davis] has put together for a seminar on artificial intelligence
** some ''Notes on ambiguity'': http://cs.nyu.edu/faculty/davise/ai/ambiguity.html
** a collection of so-called ''Winograd schemas'': http://www.cs.nyu.edu/faculty/davise/papers/WS.html
* [http://www2.let.uu.nl/Uil-OTS/Lexicon/ "ambiguity" in Utrecht Institute of Linguistics, Lexicon of Linguistics ]
* [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ambiguity/ "ambiguity" in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy]
* [http://online.sfsu.edu/kbach/ambguity.html Online version of Kent Bach's entry on ''ambiguity'' in the ''Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy''.]

<hr />
''Navigation:''
* [[Exercise-ch1|To the exercise page for chapter 1]]
* [[Textbook-chapters|To the material by chapters overview]]
* [[FSEGA|To the main page of the textbook]]

SoSe15: Term paper project: Color Adjectives

2016-04-03T18:22:52Z

Suzanne: /* Explanatory Video */

{{MaterialUnderConstruction}}

= Participants =

* [[User:Valerie_Dingeldey|Valerie Dingeldey]]
* [[User:Luisa_Schnelker|Luisa Schnelker]]

= Short description of the project =
*Showing a scenario in text and video
*Summary of Kennedy & McNally text "Color, Context and Compositionality"
*Provision of an explanatory video
*Testing knowledge on text
*Exercises
*'''Important''': In our world, it is possible to have naturally blue hair!

= Produced material =

== Scenario ==
Lisa has brown hair. She is a big fan of Katy Perry and dyes her hair blue. If she now says her hair is blue, she ''speaks the truth''. <br />Her friend Mary is a biologist and studies hair. She calls Lisa to be a participant in her study on naturally blue hair. When Lisa now says she has blue hair and can participate in the study, she ''speaks falsehood''.

Here is our scenario in video:

<embedvideo service="youtube" dimensions="400">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOD_qmOPKok</embedvideo>

== Key Points of Kennedy & McNally Text ==
Christopher Kennedy and Louise McNally, in their text "Color, Context and Compositionality" published in 2009, refer to other authors who wrote academic texts about color adjectives and their problems. We will not refer to them in our summary as it would be too confusing. What is important for us, is that the key points about color adjectives (how you can treat with them) will be clear after reading our summary and watching our explanatory video. Download the paper from [http://www.upf.edu/pdi/louise-mcnally/publications/ Louise McNally's publication page].

----
=== Scenario ===
*as the scenario shows: Lisa and Mary are in the same scenario, but they have distinct utterances of the world → they also have distinct truth values (problem occurs when two people speak in a differnt context about the same object)
*important utterance of the scenario: ''The hair is blue.''
*there has to be an underlying or lexical ambiguity
*sentences need necessary conditions under which they may be true
*to deny the judgements will not be an option here
*what is an option?
#putting a hidden variable in the denotation of color adjectives
#treating color adjectives as full-blown indexical predicates
*→ There is an underlying ambiguity, which accounts for both Lisa and Mary
----

=== The indexical responses ===
1. Hidden variables
*creating a parameter, whose value can be changed in different ways in different contexts
*denotation/logical form of ''blue'': '''blue'''(P, C, x)
*→C=Comparison Class
*→P=Variable that picks out the part of x that the property represented by blue is applied to in order to assess truth (P's value can be setted in the right way)

*'''BUT''': the judgements about ''The hair is blue'' remain the same. While Lisa accepts her hair to be blue because she dyed it this way, Mary would call her a liar because she only accepts naturally blue hair.

2. Indexical predicates
*color adjectives are full-blown indexical predicates that denote distinct properties in different contexts of utterance
*different use of color terms: for example Lisa's use of ''blue'' = blueᵢ(x) → For any x, blueᵢ(x) is true in a context Cᵢ iff (if and only if) x is blue according to the standard of blueness
*objects can be a certain color in different ways
*problem: How do we understand ''blue''? Naturally blue or painted/dyed blue?
*there is some flexibility in the interpretation of color adjectives

----

=== Color adjectives are ambiguous ===
1. Degree of color
*we now consider that Lisa dyes her hair in different shades of blue and she has another friend, who is an chemist and is only interestend in examining different blue haircolors (in comparison to Mary, the biologist)
*to distinguish different uses of color adjectives we need the interaction with comparative and degree morphology
**hue
**saturation
**brightness
**extent of color
*it is irrelevant why something is a certain color → relevant: relative degrees of some objective manifestation of color, namely objects on the basis of why they are a certain color or how they got a certain color
*gradable/nongradable distinction is a matter of meaning

2. Classification by color
*having the property denoted by the color adjective is crucially correlated with having some other property or properties which
are relevant for some purpose or other
*correlations constitute the basis for classifying objects → either a correlation exists or not (it is not a matter of degree)
**examples for classificatory use of colors:
***biologist's use of the color blue (for her it only matters if the hair is naturally blue)
***white wine counts as being white without being really white
***there is nothing that is ''less blue'', but only '''''not blue'''''
*color adjectives used for classifying objects are '''not gradable'''
*there is a certain amount of indeterminacy in how an object that has a classificatory color property might manifest a physically observable color (blue hair, for example can become grey with age)
*there are relations between manifested colors and correlated property

3. Color quantity and color quality
*'''gradable''' interpretation of colors
*dimensions
**color quantity
***How much of an object is the relevant color (completely, half,...)?
***P=Part
**color quality
***a measurement of the proximity to a prototype (degree of hue, color saturation, brightness,...)
***C=Comparison (context dependent component)
*the less a color predominates on an object, the less likely we will describe the object with this color
*'''nongradable + classificatory meaning vs. gradable + quality/quantity meaning'''
*semantic difference between gradable and nongradable color is both a matter of meaning (content) and semantic type → it constitutes a case of ambiguity
----

=== A Semantic for color terms ===
*color adjectives can be also seen as nouns → color nouns=mass nouns
*blue (or colors in general) is a constant for type ''e'' (entity)
*classification of colors is an aspect of the truth conditions that remains constant no matter how we fix value of Pᵢ (which is the correlated property)
*different readings:
**quantity reading: How much of the object manifests the color?
**quality reading: How closely does the object's manifestation of the color approximate the appropriate prototype?
----
=== Conclusions ===
*color adjectives are ambiguous
*they can be gradable or nongradable just like other adjectives
*we have distinct terms in each of the two relevant utterances of ''The hair is blue''
*they correspond to utterances of distinct sentences, which convey distinct propositions, and there is no expectation that they should have the same truth conditions
----

== Explanatory Video ==

<embedvideo service="youtube" dimensions="400">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUyxbARA9bs</embedvideo>

== Test your general knowledge ==

After having read this page and watched the video, work on the following exercises:

<quiz display=simple>
{ Answer the questions with yes or no!
| typ="()" }
| Yes | No
+- Is there an ambiguity in the sentence: The hair is blue?
-+ Is there the option of denying the judgements, namely claiming that the meaning of a color is so vague that both persons speak the truth?
-+ In the biologist’s understanding, is Lisa’s hair color gradable?
-+ Is Mary's use of color blue gradable?
|| No, because she uses the classificatory definition.
-+ Is it relevant why an object is a certain color?

</quiz>

----
'''2.''' What ''is'' relevant? (write on a sheet of paper and compare)
<div class="toccolours mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="width:800px">
'''Check your answer'''
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">

Relative degrees of some objective manifestation of color, e.g. hue, saturation, brightness.

</div></div>
----
'''3.''' What does ''C'' stand for and where does it belong to? (write on a sheet of paper and compare)
<div class="toccolours mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="width:800px">
'''Check your answer'''
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">

Comparison class; quality gradability.

</div></div>
----
'''4.''' What does ''P'' stand for and where does it belong to? (write on a sheet of paper and compare)
<div class="toccolours mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="width:800px">
'''Check your answer'''
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">

Variable that picks out part of x; quantity gradability.

</div></div>

== Other Exercises ==

After having read this page and watched the video, work on the following exercises:

<quiz display=simple>
{ Which defintion, concerning the gradability, is used?
| typ="[]" }
| Classificatory | Gradable
-+ The neighbour’s grass is greener than our grass.
+- The wine is white.
++ This grapefruit is redder than the apples.
|| Both; Gradable because grapefruit and apple are compared by the amount of red parts. <br />Also, red is used in a classifying way if you look at the parts of the sentence separately.

{ Decide whether gradable quality or gradable quantity is used in the following sentences!
| typ="()" }
| Quality | Quantity
+- I'd prefer this mango over there because it looks more yellow than this pale one here.
-+ This car is completely green.
-+ Part of this tree crown has already turned brown as it will be autumn soon.
+- This shirt is perfectly white compared to your stained one.
-+ Half of this table cloth is turquoise.
+- The telephone boxes near the Tower Bridge are shiny and red whereas the ones in Picadilly Circus are faded and old.
</quiz>

= References =

Kennedy, Christopher and Louise McNally. 2010. "Color, context and compositionality." Synthese 174, 79-98.
<br />Sailer, Manfred. "Semantics 2 Modification SoSe 2015." Lecture.

<hr>
Back to the [[Semantics_2,_SoSe_2015|Semantics 2]] page.

SoSe15: Term paper project: Color Adjectives

2016-04-03T18:21:52Z

Suzanne: /* Scenario */

{{MaterialUnderConstruction}}

= Participants =

* [[User:Valerie_Dingeldey|Valerie Dingeldey]]
* [[User:Luisa_Schnelker|Luisa Schnelker]]

= Short description of the project =
*Showing a scenario in text and video
*Summary of Kennedy & McNally text "Color, Context and Compositionality"
*Provision of an explanatory video
*Testing knowledge on text
*Exercises
*'''Important''': In our world, it is possible to have naturally blue hair!

= Produced material =

== Scenario ==
Lisa has brown hair. She is a big fan of Katy Perry and dyes her hair blue. If she now says her hair is blue, she ''speaks the truth''. <br />Her friend Mary is a biologist and studies hair. She calls Lisa to be a participant in her study on naturally blue hair. When Lisa now says she has blue hair and can participate in the study, she ''speaks falsehood''.

Here is our scenario in video:

<embedvideo service="youtube" dimensions="400">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOD_qmOPKok</embedvideo>

== Key Points of Kennedy & McNally Text ==
Christopher Kennedy and Louise McNally, in their text "Color, Context and Compositionality" published in 2009, refer to other authors who wrote academic texts about color adjectives and their problems. We will not refer to them in our summary as it would be too confusing. What is important for us, is that the key points about color adjectives (how you can treat with them) will be clear after reading our summary and watching our explanatory video. Download the paper from [http://www.upf.edu/pdi/louise-mcnally/publications/ Louise McNally's publication page].

----
=== Scenario ===
*as the scenario shows: Lisa and Mary are in the same scenario, but they have distinct utterances of the world → they also have distinct truth values (problem occurs when two people speak in a differnt context about the same object)
*important utterance of the scenario: ''The hair is blue.''
*there has to be an underlying or lexical ambiguity
*sentences need necessary conditions under which they may be true
*to deny the judgements will not be an option here
*what is an option?
#putting a hidden variable in the denotation of color adjectives
#treating color adjectives as full-blown indexical predicates
*→ There is an underlying ambiguity, which accounts for both Lisa and Mary
----

=== The indexical responses ===
1. Hidden variables
*creating a parameter, whose value can be changed in different ways in different contexts
*denotation/logical form of ''blue'': '''blue'''(P, C, x)
*→C=Comparison Class
*→P=Variable that picks out the part of x that the property represented by blue is applied to in order to assess truth (P's value can be setted in the right way)

*'''BUT''': the judgements about ''The hair is blue'' remain the same. While Lisa accepts her hair to be blue because she dyed it this way, Mary would call her a liar because she only accepts naturally blue hair.

2. Indexical predicates
*color adjectives are full-blown indexical predicates that denote distinct properties in different contexts of utterance
*different use of color terms: for example Lisa's use of ''blue'' = blueᵢ(x) → For any x, blueᵢ(x) is true in a context Cᵢ iff (if and only if) x is blue according to the standard of blueness
*objects can be a certain color in different ways
*problem: How do we understand ''blue''? Naturally blue or painted/dyed blue?
*there is some flexibility in the interpretation of color adjectives

----

=== Color adjectives are ambiguous ===
1. Degree of color
*we now consider that Lisa dyes her hair in different shades of blue and she has another friend, who is an chemist and is only interestend in examining different blue haircolors (in comparison to Mary, the biologist)
*to distinguish different uses of color adjectives we need the interaction with comparative and degree morphology
**hue
**saturation
**brightness
**extent of color
*it is irrelevant why something is a certain color → relevant: relative degrees of some objective manifestation of color, namely objects on the basis of why they are a certain color or how they got a certain color
*gradable/nongradable distinction is a matter of meaning

2. Classification by color
*having the property denoted by the color adjective is crucially correlated with having some other property or properties which
are relevant for some purpose or other
*correlations constitute the basis for classifying objects → either a correlation exists or not (it is not a matter of degree)
**examples for classificatory use of colors:
***biologist's use of the color blue (for her it only matters if the hair is naturally blue)
***white wine counts as being white without being really white
***there is nothing that is ''less blue'', but only '''''not blue'''''
*color adjectives used for classifying objects are '''not gradable'''
*there is a certain amount of indeterminacy in how an object that has a classificatory color property might manifest a physically observable color (blue hair, for example can become grey with age)
*there are relations between manifested colors and correlated property

3. Color quantity and color quality
*'''gradable''' interpretation of colors
*dimensions
**color quantity
***How much of an object is the relevant color (completely, half,...)?
***P=Part
**color quality
***a measurement of the proximity to a prototype (degree of hue, color saturation, brightness,...)
***C=Comparison (context dependent component)
*the less a color predominates on an object, the less likely we will describe the object with this color
*'''nongradable + classificatory meaning vs. gradable + quality/quantity meaning'''
*semantic difference between gradable and nongradable color is both a matter of meaning (content) and semantic type → it constitutes a case of ambiguity
----

=== A Semantic for color terms ===
*color adjectives can be also seen as nouns → color nouns=mass nouns
*blue (or colors in general) is a constant for type ''e'' (entity)
*classification of colors is an aspect of the truth conditions that remains constant no matter how we fix value of Pᵢ (which is the correlated property)
*different readings:
**quantity reading: How much of the object manifests the color?
**quality reading: How closely does the object's manifestation of the color approximate the appropriate prototype?
----
=== Conclusions ===
*color adjectives are ambiguous
*they can be gradable or nongradable just like other adjectives
*we have distinct terms in each of the two relevant utterances of ''The hair is blue''
*they correspond to utterances of distinct sentences, which convey distinct propositions, and there is no expectation that they should have the same truth conditions
----

== Explanatory Video ==

<mediaplayer>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUyxbARA9bs</mediaplayer>

== Test your general knowledge ==

After having read this page and watched the video, work on the following exercises:

<quiz display=simple>
{ Answer the questions with yes or no!
| typ="()" }
| Yes | No
+- Is there an ambiguity in the sentence: The hair is blue?
-+ Is there the option of denying the judgements, namely claiming that the meaning of a color is so vague that both persons speak the truth?
-+ In the biologist’s understanding, is Lisa’s hair color gradable?
-+ Is Mary's use of color blue gradable?
|| No, because she uses the classificatory definition.
-+ Is it relevant why an object is a certain color?

</quiz>

----
'''2.''' What ''is'' relevant? (write on a sheet of paper and compare)
<div class="toccolours mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="width:800px">
'''Check your answer'''
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">

Relative degrees of some objective manifestation of color, e.g. hue, saturation, brightness.

</div></div>
----
'''3.''' What does ''C'' stand for and where does it belong to? (write on a sheet of paper and compare)
<div class="toccolours mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="width:800px">
'''Check your answer'''
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">

Comparison class; quality gradability.

</div></div>
----
'''4.''' What does ''P'' stand for and where does it belong to? (write on a sheet of paper and compare)
<div class="toccolours mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="width:800px">
'''Check your answer'''
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">

Variable that picks out part of x; quantity gradability.

</div></div>

== Other Exercises ==

After having read this page and watched the video, work on the following exercises:

<quiz display=simple>
{ Which defintion, concerning the gradability, is used?
| typ="[]" }
| Classificatory | Gradable
-+ The neighbour’s grass is greener than our grass.
+- The wine is white.
++ This grapefruit is redder than the apples.
|| Both; Gradable because grapefruit and apple are compared by the amount of red parts. <br />Also, red is used in a classifying way if you look at the parts of the sentence separately.

{ Decide whether gradable quality or gradable quantity is used in the following sentences!
| typ="()" }
| Quality | Quantity
+- I'd prefer this mango over there because it looks more yellow than this pale one here.
-+ This car is completely green.
-+ Part of this tree crown has already turned brown as it will be autumn soon.
+- This shirt is perfectly white compared to your stained one.
-+ Half of this table cloth is turquoise.
+- The telephone boxes near the Tower Bridge are shiny and red whereas the ones in Picadilly Circus are faded and old.
</quiz>

= References =

Kennedy, Christopher and Louise McNally. 2010. "Color, context and compositionality." Synthese 174, 79-98.
<br />Sailer, Manfred. "Semantics 2 Modification SoSe 2015." Lecture.

<hr>
Back to the [[Semantics_2,_SoSe_2015|Semantics 2]] page.

Semantics 1, WiSe 2014/15 (Sailer)

2016-04-03T18:20:15Z

Suzanne: /* Input */

= Material for Manfred Sailer's seminar<br><br> ''Semantics 1'', winter term 2014/15, Goethe University, Frankfurt a.M. =

== General information ==

You can get 2 CPs for the [http://www.abl.uni-frankfurt.de/41032000/Medienkompetenzzertifikat? Medienkompetenzzertifikat] in this class.

Register for the olat course at https://olat.server.uni-frankfurt.de/olat/url/RepositoryEntry/2563833857.

Practice material:
* [[Semantics_1,_WiSe_2014/15:_Mock_exam| Mock exam]] with master solutions for WiSe 2014/15
* Master solution for the first assignment sheet
* Master solution for the second assignment sheet.

== Material for week 6: Meeting of November 18, 2014 ==

Work through the material for week 6. Hand in your solution to the '''homework task''' at the meeting of November 25 (this will count as "proof of attendance" for the meeting of week 6).

=== Input ===

Watch the following video on logical determiners:

<embedvideo service="youtube" dimensions="400">http://youtu.be/5PRL23XcaFY</embedvideo>


=== Tasks ===

After having watched the video, work on the following tasks.

'''Task 1''' Identify the determiners in the following sentence.

(a) Juliet talked to some stranger at the party.

(b) Every Capulet is an enemy to some Montague.

(c) Many people in Verona are not happy about the Capulet-Montague feud.

<div class="toccolours mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="width:800px">
Check your solutions here:
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">
(a) ''some''

(b) ''every'', ''some''

(c) ''many''</div>
</div>

'''Task 2''' Identify the formula that corresponds to the translation of the sentence.

<quiz display=simple>

{''Some Montague who was at the party fell in love with Juliet.''
|type="()"}
- ∃''x'' ('''montague<sub>1</sub>'''(''x'') : ('''at-party<sub>1</sub>'''(''x'') &and; '''fall-in-love-with<sub>2</sub>'''(''x'','''juliet''')))
|| In restricted quantifier notation, the "complete" semantic representation of the noun phrase (NP) appears in the restrictor (-> square brackets).
+ ∃''x'' (('''montague<sub>1</sub>'''(''x'') &and; '''at-party<sub>1</sub>'''(''x'')) : '''fall-in-love-with<sub>2</sub>'''(''x'','''juliet'''))
- ∃''x'' ('''montague<sub>1</sub>'''(''x'') : ('''at-party<sub>1</sub>'''(''x'') &and; '''fall-in-love-with<sub>2</sub>'''(''x'','''juliet'''))
|| In restricted quantifier notation, the semantic representation of the noun phrase (NP) appears in the restrictor.
- ∃''x'' (('''montague<sub>1</sub>'''(''x'') &and; '''fall-in-love-with<sub>2</sub>'''(''x'','''juliet''')) : '''at-party<sub>1</sub>'''(''x''))
|| In restricted quantifier notation, the semantic representation of the noun phrase (NP) appears in the restrictor, that of the VP in the scope.

</quiz>

'''Task 3''' The sentence: ''Some Tybalt loved some Montague.'' is translated into the formula<br>∃ y ('''montague<sub>1</sub>'''(''y'') : '''love<sub>2</sub>'''('''tybalt''',''y'').

<quiz display=simple>
{Mark all the cells in the table that stand for a true statement.
|type="[]"}
| '''montague<sub>1</sub>'''(''y'') <span style="color:white">zwisch</span>| '''love<sub>2</sub>'''('''tybalt''',''y'')<span style="color:white">zwisch</span>
+- ''Romeo''
+- ''Mercutio''
-- ''Juliet''
-- ''Tybalt''
-- ''Laurence''
-- ''Paris''
</quiz>

Given this table, is the overall formula true or false? (Give a reason for your answer.)
<div class="toccolours mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="width:800px">
Check your solutions here:
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">
The formula is false, because there is no individual in our model for which both the restrictor and the scope are true.
</div>
</div>

'''Task 4''' Variable assignment function<br>
Start with the following variable assigment function ''g'':
''g(u) = Romeo, g(v) = Juliet, g(w) = Romeo, g(x) = Laurence, g(y) = Mercutio, g(z) = Juliet''

Provide the changed variable assignment function ''g''[''v/Paris''].

<div class="toccolours mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="width:800px">
Check your solutions here:
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">
''g''[''v/Paris'']''(u)'' = ''g(u)'' = ''Romeo''<br>''g''[''v/Paris'']''(v)'' = ''Paris''<br>''g''[''v/Paris'']''(w)'' = ''g(w)'' = ''Romeo''<br>''g''[''v/Paris'']''(x)'' = ''g(x)'' = ''Laurence''<br>''g''[''v/Paris'']''(y)'' = ''g(y)'' = ''Mercutio''<br>''g''[''v/Paris'']''(z)'' = ''g(z)'' = ''Juliet''
</div>
</div>

=== Homework task for the meeting of November 25 ===

In the following sentences,
# identify the determiner, the restrictor, and the scope,
# provide the paraphrase,
# translate the sentences into formulae,
# indicate for each formula whether it is true or false.

<u>''Example:''</u>
''Laurence married Romeo to a Capulet.''
# determiner: ''a''<br>restrictor: ''Capulet''<br>scope: ''Laurence married Romeo to x''
# paraphrase: For some ''x'' such that ''x'' is a Capulet, Laurence married Romeo to ''x''.
# formula: ∃ ''x'' ('''capulet<sub>1</sub>'''(''x'') : '''marry-to'''('''laurence''', '''romeo''', ''x''))
# true or false? The formula is true in the context of our play because Juliet is a Capulet and Laurence marries Romeo to her. Thus, we find an individual for which both the restrictor and the scope are true.

Work on the following sentences:

(a) ''Romeo talked to a friar.''

(b) ''Juliet killed every Capulet.''

Semantics1 Week 2

2016-04-03T18:16:40Z

Suzanne: /* First steps */

Additional material for the meeting of week 2, April 22, 2015.

Our literary scenario: ''Game of Thrones'' (TV series)
* Wikipedia site: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_of_Thrones<br/>Site on season 1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_of_Thrones_%28season_1%29
* Short summary of season 1 on youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atxp6x3YreI

= Our scenario and some preliminary thoughts =

== Getting into our literary scenario ==

Watch the trailer of Season 1 of ''Game of Thrones'':

<embedvideo service="youtube" dimensions="400">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YinJaXzgzqI</embedvideo>

Having watched the video, which of the following statements are true in our scenario?

<quiz display=simple>

{Click on those statements that are true in our scenario.
|type="[]"}
+ ''John Snow is Ned Stark's son.''
- ''Catelyn wants that her husband becomes the king's Hand.''
- ''Catelyn wants her husband to become the Hand of the king.''
+ ''There is a king.''
- ''There is no king.''

</quiz>

The meanings of some of these sentences are closely related. What do you observe for the following sentence pairs?

''Catelyn wants that her husband becomes the king's Hand.'' and ''Catelyn wants her husband to become the Hand of the king.''
<div class="toccolours mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="width:800px">
Check your answers
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">
The two sentences are paraphrases of each other, i.e., in every situation, whever the first is true, so is the second.
</div>
</div>

''There is a king.'' and ''There is no king.''
<div class="toccolours mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="width:800px">
Check your answers
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">
The two sentences contradict each other. Whenever one is true, the other must be false.
</div>
</div>

''Catelyn wants that her husband becomes the king's Hand.'' and ''There is a king.''
<div class="toccolours mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="width:800px">
Check your answers
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">
Whoever utters the first sentence must also assume the truth of the second. (Technically, the second sentence is presupposed by the first, but this doesn't matter here.)
</div>
</div>

'''Task:'''
# Formulate '''three''' more statements with respect to our scenario.
# Determine for each of them whether it is true or false in our scenario.
# Is there a systematic relation between the meaning of your sentences?

== Why it is too difficult to go directly from language to the world ==

The following architecture is extremely useful when talking about semantics:

# A natural language expressions: ''Rob likes John.''
# ... is mapped to some expression from a formal language (here: predicate logic): '''like'''('''rob''','''john''')
# This logical expression is then interpreted with respect to our scenario/world: The formula '''like'''('''rob''','''john''') is true, because, in our scenario, Rob likes John.

The following properties of natural language make it useful to use the intermediate step of a logical language:
# The same expression can have different meanings (ambiguity).
# Different expressions can have the same meaning (synonyms, paraphrases)

Find examples for the above-mentioned properties (ambiguity, synonymy, paraphrases).

<div class="toccolours mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="width:800px">
Check your answers
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">
1. one form, two meaingns: Ambiguity: (see earlier in this meeting and the slides of last week's meeting)

1.a Ambiguous words: ''date'' (fruit or point in time); ''bank'' (financial institute or bank of a river)

1.b. Ambiguous sentences: ''Ned ''

2. two forms, one meaning:

2.a Synonymous words: ''couch'' - ''sofa''; ''instant'' - ''moment''

2.b Paraphrases:
* active-passive pairs: ''Robert invited Ned to King's Landing.'' - ''Ned got invited to King's Landing by Robert.''
* cleft sentences: ''Robert invited Ned to King's Landing.'' - ''It was to King's Landing that Robert invited Ned.''
* our previous example: ''Catelyn wants that her husband becomes the king's Hand.'' and ''Catelyn wants her husband to become the Hand of the king.''
</div>
</div>

= Towards a formal model =

== First steps ==

You can think of building a formal model like being the producer of a film who has to collect everything that should be included in the film.

Here is a very simple story from which we can derive an example model.

<embedvideo service="youtube" dimensions="400">http://youtu.be/4a3mXelw7H4</embedvideo>

<quiz display="simple">
{Mark those elements that we need in a model.
|type="[]"}
+ relations
|| Yes. We use relations to express what is true between various individuals. For example the relation ''grandmother-of''.
+ individuals
||Yes. In the video, we have three individuals, ''Red Riding Hood'', ''Grandmother'', and ''Wolf''.
- nouns
|| nouns are a syntactic category and as such part of the language, not of the "world".
+ properties
||Yes. The video mentions some properties such as having a red hood.
- relatives
|| (this is a nonsense alternative)
</quiz>

<quiz display="simple">
{What is the status of the following entities in the video on Little Red Riding Hood?
|type="[]"}
|individual|property|relation
+-- ''Red Riding Hood''
-+- ''lives in the forest''
+-- ''Grandmother''
--+ ''is afternoon snack for''
-+- ''has a red hood''
-+- ''has a big mouth''
--+ ''is grandmother of''
</quiz>

== The universe and name symbols ==

'''Task:''' Assume '''three''' individuals from our ''Game of Thrones''-scenario.

Formally we collect the individuals of our model in a so-called ''universe'' (''U''). For the fairy-tale story, we can define the universe as follows:

''U'' = {''Redridinghood'', ''Grandmother'', ''Wolf''}

Do a similar definition for your own scenario.

We can introduce ''name symbols'' for some of our individuals. For example: '''redridinghood''', '''grandmother''', '''wolf'''.

We link the name symbols to the individuals in our modal. To do this, we introduce the '''interpretation function'''. We will written the interpretation function as as ''I''.<br />This function can be defined in the following way:

''I''('''grandmother''') = '''Grandmother'''<br />''I''('''redridinghood''') = ''Red Riding Hood''<br />''I''(''wolf'') = ''Wolf''<br />

== Relations and predicate symbols ==

In the fairy-tale scenario we express a relation between Little Red Riding Hood and the Wolf, namely that Little Red Riding Hood is the Wolf's afternoon snack. To formalize this, we collect all '''pairs''' of individuals which are such that the first element in the pair is the afternoon snack of the second. '''Note:''' A ''pair'' is written in between pointy brackets.

Formally we can write this down as follows:<br />
{< ''x'', ''y'' > | ''x'' is ''y'' 's afternoon snack} = { < ''Redridinghood'', ''Wolf'' >, < ''Grandmother'', ''Redriding hood'' >.}

We can also assume empty relations:

{< ''x'', ''y'' > | ''x'' is ''y'' 's father } = { }

Note, if a relation works both ways, two pairs must be added:

{< ''x'', ''y'' > | ''x'' talks with ''y''} = { <''Redridinghood'', ''Wolf'' >, < ''Wolf'', ''Redridinghood'' >}

'''Task:''' Using your ''Game of Thrones''-universe from above, introduce one binary and one ternary relation.

Just like with names, we want to have symbols that we can use in the logical language. For our example, let's take the predicate symbols '''afternoon-snack-of_2''' and '''father-of_2''', and '''talks-with_2'''. (The number 2 indicates that the interpretation consists of pairs, not just of single individual) There interpretation is defined as follows:<br>

''I''('''afternoon-snack-of_2''') = { < ''x'', ''y'' > | ''x'' is ''y'' 's afternoon snack } = { <''Redridinghood'', ''Wolf'' >, <''Grandmother'', ''Wolf'' > }.

'''Task:''' For each of your properties, invent an appropriate ''predicate symbol''. Define its interpretation.

== Properties and predicate symbols ==

A property is a specification that either holds of an individual or not. In the little story, having a big mouth is a property of the Wolf, but of noone else in the story. Being female holds of both Little Red Riding Hood and the Grandmother.

We can think of a property as the set of individuals that have this property. Under this view, the property of being female would be the set {''Redridinghood'', ''Grandmother''}.

Alternatively it is convenient to think of properties as '''1-place relations'''. Under this view, the property of being female would be a set of lists of length 1. This is what the property of being female then looks like: { <''Redridinghood''>, <''Grandmother''> }

'''Task:''' Using your ''Game of Thrones'' universe, define ''two'' properties in the format of 1-place relations.

Just like before, we want to have symbols that we can use in the logical language. For our example, let's take the predicate symbols '''female_1''' and '''has-big-mouth_1'''. There interpretation is defined as follows:<br>

''I''('''female_1''') = { < ''x'' > | ''x'' is female } = { <''Redridinghood''>, <''Grandmother''> }.

'''Task:''' For each of your properties, invent an appropriate ''predicate symbol''. Define its interpretation.

= For next week =

* Get information on our literary scenario: ''Game of Thrones'' (TV series)
** Wikipedia site: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_of_Thrones<br/>Site on season 1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_of_Thrones_%28season_1%29
** Short summary of season 1 on youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atxp6x3YreI
* Towards a formal model:
** Watch the video and work on the questions of section http://www.lexical-resource-semantics.de/wiki/index.php/Semantics1_Week_2#First_steps
** Read Levine et al. (in prep.), Chapter 2, Section 1 [available on olat].

Semantics1 Week 2

2016-04-03T18:15:58Z

Suzanne: /* Getting into our literary scenario */

Additional material for the meeting of week 2, April 22, 2015.

Our literary scenario: ''Game of Thrones'' (TV series)
* Wikipedia site: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_of_Thrones<br/>Site on season 1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_of_Thrones_%28season_1%29
* Short summary of season 1 on youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atxp6x3YreI

= Our scenario and some preliminary thoughts =

== Getting into our literary scenario ==

Watch the trailer of Season 1 of ''Game of Thrones'':

<embedvideo service="youtube" dimensions="400">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YinJaXzgzqI</embedvideo>

Having watched the video, which of the following statements are true in our scenario?

<quiz display=simple>

{Click on those statements that are true in our scenario.
|type="[]"}
+ ''John Snow is Ned Stark's son.''
- ''Catelyn wants that her husband becomes the king's Hand.''
- ''Catelyn wants her husband to become the Hand of the king.''
+ ''There is a king.''
- ''There is no king.''

</quiz>

The meanings of some of these sentences are closely related. What do you observe for the following sentence pairs?

''Catelyn wants that her husband becomes the king's Hand.'' and ''Catelyn wants her husband to become the Hand of the king.''
<div class="toccolours mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="width:800px">
Check your answers
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">
The two sentences are paraphrases of each other, i.e., in every situation, whever the first is true, so is the second.
</div>
</div>

''There is a king.'' and ''There is no king.''
<div class="toccolours mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="width:800px">
Check your answers
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">
The two sentences contradict each other. Whenever one is true, the other must be false.
</div>
</div>

''Catelyn wants that her husband becomes the king's Hand.'' and ''There is a king.''
<div class="toccolours mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="width:800px">
Check your answers
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">
Whoever utters the first sentence must also assume the truth of the second. (Technically, the second sentence is presupposed by the first, but this doesn't matter here.)
</div>
</div>

'''Task:'''
# Formulate '''three''' more statements with respect to our scenario.
# Determine for each of them whether it is true or false in our scenario.
# Is there a systematic relation between the meaning of your sentences?

== Why it is too difficult to go directly from language to the world ==

The following architecture is extremely useful when talking about semantics:

# A natural language expressions: ''Rob likes John.''
# ... is mapped to some expression from a formal language (here: predicate logic): '''like'''('''rob''','''john''')
# This logical expression is then interpreted with respect to our scenario/world: The formula '''like'''('''rob''','''john''') is true, because, in our scenario, Rob likes John.

The following properties of natural language make it useful to use the intermediate step of a logical language:
# The same expression can have different meanings (ambiguity).
# Different expressions can have the same meaning (synonyms, paraphrases)

Find examples for the above-mentioned properties (ambiguity, synonymy, paraphrases).

<div class="toccolours mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="width:800px">
Check your answers
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">
1. one form, two meaingns: Ambiguity: (see earlier in this meeting and the slides of last week's meeting)

1.a Ambiguous words: ''date'' (fruit or point in time); ''bank'' (financial institute or bank of a river)

1.b. Ambiguous sentences: ''Ned ''

2. two forms, one meaning:

2.a Synonymous words: ''couch'' - ''sofa''; ''instant'' - ''moment''

2.b Paraphrases:
* active-passive pairs: ''Robert invited Ned to King's Landing.'' - ''Ned got invited to King's Landing by Robert.''
* cleft sentences: ''Robert invited Ned to King's Landing.'' - ''It was to King's Landing that Robert invited Ned.''
* our previous example: ''Catelyn wants that her husband becomes the king's Hand.'' and ''Catelyn wants her husband to become the Hand of the king.''
</div>
</div>

= Towards a formal model =

== First steps ==

You can think of building a formal model like being the producer of a film who has to collect everything that should be included in the film.

Here is a very simple story from which we can derive an example model.

<mediaplayer>http://youtu.be/4a3mXelw7H4</mediaplayer>

<quiz display="simple">
{Mark those elements that we need in a model.
|type="[]"}
+ relations
|| Yes. We use relations to express what is true between various individuals. For example the relation ''grandmother-of''.
+ individuals
||Yes. In the video, we have three individuals, ''Red Riding Hood'', ''Grandmother'', and ''Wolf''.
- nouns
|| nouns are a syntactic category and as such part of the language, not of the "world".
+ properties
||Yes. The video mentions some properties such as having a red hood.
- relatives
|| (this is a nonsense alternative)
</quiz>

<quiz display="simple">
{What is the status of the following entities in the video on Little Red Riding Hood?
|type="[]"}
|individual|property|relation
+-- ''Red Riding Hood''
-+- ''lives in the forest''
+-- ''Grandmother''
--+ ''is afternoon snack for''
-+- ''has a red hood''
-+- ''has a big mouth''
--+ ''is grandmother of''
</quiz>

== The universe and name symbols ==

'''Task:''' Assume '''three''' individuals from our ''Game of Thrones''-scenario.

Formally we collect the individuals of our model in a so-called ''universe'' (''U''). For the fairy-tale story, we can define the universe as follows:

''U'' = {''Redridinghood'', ''Grandmother'', ''Wolf''}

Do a similar definition for your own scenario.

We can introduce ''name symbols'' for some of our individuals. For example: '''redridinghood''', '''grandmother''', '''wolf'''.

We link the name symbols to the individuals in our modal. To do this, we introduce the '''interpretation function'''. We will written the interpretation function as as ''I''.<br />This function can be defined in the following way:

''I''('''grandmother''') = '''Grandmother'''<br />''I''('''redridinghood''') = ''Red Riding Hood''<br />''I''(''wolf'') = ''Wolf''<br />

== Relations and predicate symbols ==

In the fairy-tale scenario we express a relation between Little Red Riding Hood and the Wolf, namely that Little Red Riding Hood is the Wolf's afternoon snack. To formalize this, we collect all '''pairs''' of individuals which are such that the first element in the pair is the afternoon snack of the second. '''Note:''' A ''pair'' is written in between pointy brackets.

Formally we can write this down as follows:<br />
{< ''x'', ''y'' > | ''x'' is ''y'' 's afternoon snack} = { < ''Redridinghood'', ''Wolf'' >, < ''Grandmother'', ''Redriding hood'' >.}

We can also assume empty relations:

{< ''x'', ''y'' > | ''x'' is ''y'' 's father } = { }

Note, if a relation works both ways, two pairs must be added:

{< ''x'', ''y'' > | ''x'' talks with ''y''} = { <''Redridinghood'', ''Wolf'' >, < ''Wolf'', ''Redridinghood'' >}

'''Task:''' Using your ''Game of Thrones''-universe from above, introduce one binary and one ternary relation.

Just like with names, we want to have symbols that we can use in the logical language. For our example, let's take the predicate symbols '''afternoon-snack-of_2''' and '''father-of_2''', and '''talks-with_2'''. (The number 2 indicates that the interpretation consists of pairs, not just of single individual) There interpretation is defined as follows:<br>

''I''('''afternoon-snack-of_2''') = { < ''x'', ''y'' > | ''x'' is ''y'' 's afternoon snack } = { <''Redridinghood'', ''Wolf'' >, <''Grandmother'', ''Wolf'' > }.

'''Task:''' For each of your properties, invent an appropriate ''predicate symbol''. Define its interpretation.

== Properties and predicate symbols ==

A property is a specification that either holds of an individual or not. In the little story, having a big mouth is a property of the Wolf, but of noone else in the story. Being female holds of both Little Red Riding Hood and the Grandmother.

We can think of a property as the set of individuals that have this property. Under this view, the property of being female would be the set {''Redridinghood'', ''Grandmother''}.

Alternatively it is convenient to think of properties as '''1-place relations'''. Under this view, the property of being female would be a set of lists of length 1. This is what the property of being female then looks like: { <''Redridinghood''>, <''Grandmother''> }

'''Task:''' Using your ''Game of Thrones'' universe, define ''two'' properties in the format of 1-place relations.

Just like before, we want to have symbols that we can use in the logical language. For our example, let's take the predicate symbols '''female_1''' and '''has-big-mouth_1'''. There interpretation is defined as follows:<br>

''I''('''female_1''') = { < ''x'' > | ''x'' is female } = { <''Redridinghood''>, <''Grandmother''> }.

'''Task:''' For each of your properties, invent an appropriate ''predicate symbol''. Define its interpretation.

= For next week =

* Get information on our literary scenario: ''Game of Thrones'' (TV series)
** Wikipedia site: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_of_Thrones<br/>Site on season 1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_of_Thrones_%28season_1%29
** Short summary of season 1 on youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atxp6x3YreI
* Towards a formal model:
** Watch the video and work on the questions of section http://www.lexical-resource-semantics.de/wiki/index.php/Semantics1_Week_2#First_steps
** Read Levine et al. (in prep.), Chapter 2, Section 1 [available on olat].

NMTS Meeting 8

2016-04-03T18:06:49Z

Suzanne: /* Examples of how to include a podcasts in the wiki */

{{MaterialUnderConstruction}}

=Creating Podcasts 1=

This meeting will be directed by [http://www.relpaed.uni-frankfurt.de/team/bohrer/index.html Dr. Clemens Bohrer], Akademie für Bildungsforschung und Lehrerbildung, Frankfurt a.M.

== Preparation ==

Install the following software on your computer:
* for the sound: Audacity
** [http://audacity.sourceforge.net/ Audacity]: Software for the creation of audio podcasts
** [http://manual.audacityteam.org/help/manual/man/faq_installation_and_plug_ins.html#lame LAME MP3 Encoder]: Plug-in for Audacity
* for the video:
** iMovie (for Mac)
** Moviemaker (for Windows)

If possible, bring to the class:
* your computer with the programs installed,
* a headset so that you can do recordings on the spot.

= Meeting =

# Sailer: Introduction
# Bohrer: ''Making podcasts'': [http://prezi.com/26gypepylsm7/podcasterstellung-im-rahmen-des-seminars-new-media-in-teaching-semantics/ Prezi presentation]
## conceptual aspects
## technical aspects:
### Audacity
### MovieMaker
### iMovie (Smith)
# Sailer: Homework for meeting 9 and 10
# Questions

== Homework ==

=== Homework for December 11 ===

# Read Chapter 2 ''First Order Logic'' of Kate Kearns (2000), ''Semantics'' (available online at the UB).
# Propose a jingle for our podcasts and/or a title page. Send your suggestions to [mailto:sailer@em.uni-frankfurt.de Manfred Sailer].

=== Homework for December 18 ===
Create a small podcast. Upload your file no later than '''Monday, December 17, 11 am'''!

# Introduction: containing a greeting and a short presentation.
# Main part:
## Content: short description of the phenomenon, definition, example, or similar.
## Form: interview, dialogue, mini-lecture, ...
# Closing: containing a pointer to the website, references, farewell, contact possibility: lrs@english-linguistics.de

Upload your podcast to OLAT (folder: ''Podcasts'').

Your file should contain:
* clearly spoken text
* some (not too many!) additional sound effects (use own or free material)
* illustrating/supporting pictures (use own or free material)

Hint: We have put together a number of useful links for the creation of podcasts on the page [[Hauptseminar:_''New_Media_in_Teaching_Semantics''#Links_to_tools_for_creating_e-learning_material]]

= Material =

== Examples of linguistic podcasts ==

* [http://linguistics.podbean.com/ Linguistics Podcast (@linguistchris): http://linguistics.podbean.com/]: a free series of linguistic podcasts<br>The podcasts are relatively long. They have an interesting structure:
** Introduction: A short introduction/teaser to the topic, the jingle of the podcast series, a general intro to the series
** Main part: the real content. The style is casual, but the speaker also names main references that the podcast is based on.
** Closing: a final note at the end with main reference and contact possibility.<br>
Overall a very attractive way of presentation which basis its information on reliable and indicated sources.

== Links to tools for creating podcasts ==

(the following section is copied from the introductory page of this class, [[Hauptseminar:_''New_Media_in_Teaching_Semantics'']])

=== Creating audio content ===

* [http://audacity.sourceforge.net/ Audacity]: Software for the creation of audio podcasts
* [http://manual.audacityteam.org/help/manual/man/faq_installation_and_plug_ins.html#lame LAME MP3 Encoder]: Plug-in for Audacity

=== Converters ===

* [http://www.xnconvert.com/ XnConvert]: Easy to use image converter.
* [http://www.gimp.org/ GIMP]: Very complex and powerful image manipulation program.
* [http://handbrake.fr/ HandBrake]: Video converter.
* [http://www.mirovideoconverter.com/ Miro Video Converter]: A simple converter for almost any video to MP4, WebM (vp8), Ogg Theora, or for Android, iPhone, and more.

=== Collections ===

* [http://soundsource.servus.at/ Soundsource]: Free sounds.
* [http://www.hoerspielbox.de Hörspielbox]: Free sounds.
* [http://www.jamendo.com jamendo]: Free music.
* [http://www.sxc.hu/ stock.xchng]: Free stock photos.

=== Links to tutorials ===

More tutorial files can be found in the Olat folder for our class.

* [http://wiki.podcast.de/Hauptseite Podcast Wiki]: German Podcast wiki, including links and tutorials
* [http://www.how-to-podcast-tutorial.com/17-audacity-tutorial.htm Audacity Tutorial for Podcasters]: Including some video tutorials.
* [http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLCDC7015D1A1FAFD8 German Youtube tutorial for Podcasts with Audacity]
* [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXUJyV6hVHk English Youtube tutorial for Podcasts with Audacity]

== Examples of how to include a podcasts in the wiki ==

=== Audiopodcasts ===

This is how an audiopodcast can be included.

==== ogg files ====

Files in the format ogg can be directly uploaded on the wiki - just like pictures. To include them in a wiki page, you type for example:

<nowiki>[[File:6steps_syntax.ogg]]</nowiki>

This results in: [[File:6steps_syntax.ogg]]

==== mp3 files ====

Files in mp3 format cannot be uploaded directly. Please upload your mp3 file to the folder Podcasts in OLAT. Notify Manfred Sailer by mail and he will send you a valid URL to your file.
You can then include it in a wiki page by the following command, where <nowiki>"..."</nowiki> stands for the URL of your mp3 file:

<nowiki><mp3player>...</mp3player></nowiki>

This results in: <mp3player>http://user.uni-frankfurt.de/~sailer/teaching/audio-StepsInSyntax.mp3</mp3player>

=== Films, videopodcasts ===

We have created a youtube channel for videopodcasts.

The following steps are required:
# Upload your videopodcast into the folder Podcasts at OLAT.
# Manfred Sailer will upload it at our youtube channel and send you the youtube link to your podcast.
# Include the link in the appropriate page.

Links to youtube-videos can be included in the following way (were "..." stands for the youtube id of the clip):

<nowiki><embedvideo service="youtube" dimensions="400">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=...</embedvideo></nowiki>

For example, the video with number EDBaCAVgHUI is addressed here:

<embedvideo service="youtube" dimensions="400">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDbaCAVgHUI</embedvideo>

<hr />
Back to the [[NMTS_Course_Overview|course overview]].

NMTS Meeting 10

2016-04-03T18:02:32Z

Suzanne: /* Podcasts of the groups */

{{MaterialUnderConstruction}}

=== Studierendenbefragung ===

[[File:Webbanner-Weihnachten.jpg]]

http://www2.uni-frankfurt.de/43608865/startpunkt-studierendenbefragung

=Creating Podcasts 2=

This meeting will be directed by [http://www.relpaed.uni-frankfurt.de/team/bohrer/index.html Dr. Clemens Bohrer], Akademie für Bildungsforschung und Lehrerbildung, Frankfurt a.M.

== Preparation ==

* Upload your first trial podcast into the OLAT folder "Podcasts" no later than 10am on December 17.

== Podcasts of the groups ==

=== Group 0 ===

We have uploaded a podcast from 2008 which illustrates the various steps in a syntactic analysis.

<embedvideo service="youtube" dimensions="400">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDbaCAVgHUI</embedvideo>

=== Group 1 ===

Podcast on lexical ambiguity

<embedvideo service="youtube" dimensions="400">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SyyqkS1aofI</embedvideo>

=== Group 2 ===

Basic semantic relations: Homonyms and homographs

<embedvideo service="youtube" dimensions="400">http://youtu.be/M7pvAmLtOSk</embedvideo>

=== Group 3 ===

A podcast to introduce semantics

<embedvideo service="youtube" dimensions="400">http://youtu.be/YQJvOaMCUaw</embedvideo>

A podcast about presuppositions

<embedvideo service="youtube" dimensions="400">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vb8c7pEEEYg</embedvideo>

=== Group 4 ===

Implicature

<embedvideo service="youtube" dimensions="400">http://youtu.be/6SIEglKPTtg</embedvideo>

=== Group 5 ===

Quantifiers

<embedvideo service="youtube" dimensions="400">http://youtu.be/tE2TuQwpGZU</embedvideo>

=== Group 8 ===

Podcast about sorts

<embedvideo service="youtube" dimensions="400">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EK6tqXdmFwk&feature=youtu.be</embedvideo>

=== Group 9 ===

Podcast on predicate logic

<embedvideo service="youtube" dimensions="400">http://youtu.be/4a3mXelw7H4</embedvideo>

== Homework for January 15 ==

Create '''three''' exercises on your topic and think of how you could encode them in our wiki.

<hr />
Back to the [[NMTS_Course_Overview|course overview]].

NMTS-Group9

2016-04-03T17:58:21Z

Suzanne: /* Our podcast */

{{MaterialUnderConstruction}}

= Wikipage of Group 9 =

== Overview ==

=== Members ===
'''[[User:Lisa| Lisa]]''' <br /> '''[[User:Marthe| Marthe]]''' <br /> '''[[User:Elisabeth.krall| Elisabeth]]''' <br /> '''[[User:IsaB|Isabelle]]'''

=== Short description of the topic ===

'''Predicate logic - logical connectives'''

"Predicate logic" is a linguistic concept belonging to the field of semantics, specifically syntax and grammar. Within that concept natural language is translated into a logical language (formulae) in order to illustrate the relation between a sentence, the conditions under which a given sentence is true and the circumstances in the real world.

The predicate of a sentence serves either to assign an information (property) to a single argument ("argument" here meaning a part of the sentence, such as subjects and objects) or to relate two or more arguments to each other. The predicate is seen as linking its arguments to give purpose to a sentence's content. Such a sentence can be paraphrased in a structured way which gives information about the relations between the elements of the sentence.

The purpose of Predicate logic is to avoid ambiguity in sentences by forming formulae out of natural language, which can only be interpreted in one way. Logical connectives, in form of symbols, are used to create formulae out of sentences with "and", "or", "if/then" and "not" and thereby giving information about the mentioned relations.

The aim is to be able to interpret given formulae in a way that it becomes possible to state if a given sentence is true or false regarding a given model or story that the formulae were formed from. A model in this case means the information given about all the individuals of a setting, their properties and their relations in the real world.

==== Connectives - Examples ====

===== AND =====

Symbol: Ʌ <br />
Sentence: Harry is a student and Snape is a teacher. <br />
Formulae: <nowiki>[[</nowiki>'''student(harry) Ʌ teacher(snape)''']] = ''true/false''

'''Truthtable AND'''

[[File:Truthtable_AND1.png|400px]]

===== OR =====

Symbol: V <br />
Sentence: Harry is a student or Snape is a teacher. <br />
Formulae: <nowiki>[[</nowiki>'''student(harry) V teacher(snape)''']] = ''true/false''

'''Truthtable OR'''

[[File:Truthtable_OR1.png|400px]]

===== IF/THEN =====

Symbol: --> <br />
Sentence: If Harry is a student then Snape is a teacher. <br />
Formulae: <nowiki>[[</nowiki>'''student(harry) --> teacher(snape''')]] = ''true/false''

'''Truthtable IF/THEN'''

[[File:Truthtable_IF_THEN2.png|400px]]

===== NOT =====

Symbol: ¬ <br />
Sentence: Harry is not a student. <br />
Formulae: <nowiki>[[</nowiki>'''¬student(harry)''']] = ''true/false''

The original formulae has to be false, that the overall statement is true.

'''Example:'''
Only if '''student(harry)''' is ''false'', '''¬student(harry''') is ''true''.

'''Truthtable NOT'''

[[File:Truthtable_NOT.png|300px]]

==== Difficulties ====
* Abstraction of content/natural language
* Understanding the whole process from creating a model to interpret formulae
* Understanding the truth conditions of a formulae with connectives

== References and links ==

=== References ===

* Course material "Introduction to Semantics" by Manfred Sailer
* Levine, Robert D., Frank Richter, and Manfred Sailer (in preparation): Formal Semantics. An Empirically Grounded Approach. Stanford: CSLI Publications. Draft of April 2012.

=== Links ===

* [http://www.philosophy.hku.hk/think/sl Sentential Logic]

* [http://www.philosophy.hku.hk/think/pl Predicate Logic]

= Our e-learning objects =

== Our wiki pages ==


* in the Glossary (only those relevant for our topic):
** [[Glossary:_Predicate| Glossary entry for ''predicate'']]
** [[Glossary:_Formulae| Glossary entry for ''formulae'']]
** [[Glossary:_I-Function| Glossary entry for ''I-Function'']]
** [[Glossary:_G-Function| Glossary entry for ''G-Function'']]
** [[Glossary:_Logical Connectives| Glossary entry for ''Logical Connective'']]

== Our podcast ==


<embedvideo service="youtube" dimensions="400">http://youtu.be/4a3mXelw7H4</embedvideo>

== Our material for an interactive whiteboard ==


*[http://user.uni-frankfurt.de/~sailer/nmts-wise1213/Presentation-PredicateLogic.notebook Presentation on Predicate Logic]

*[http://user.uni-frankfurt.de/~sailer/nmts-wise1213/Presentation-PredicateLogic-Comments.docx Comments on the presentation]

== Our pictures ==

<gallery>
File:Lisa.jpg|Lisa
File:MartheBerkenheide.jpg|Marthe
File:Picture liss.jpg|Elisabeth
File:IsabelleBrend'amour.jpg|Isabelle
File:Truthtable_AND1.png|Truthtable AND
File:Truthtable_OR1.png|Truthtable OR
File:Truthtable_IF_THEN2.png|Truthtable IF THEN
File:Truthtable_NOT.png|Truthtable NOT

</gallery>

== Our exercises ==


Complex exercise on Predicate Logic:

* [[Creation_of_the_World|Exercise 1: Creation of the World]]

* [[Formulae_and_their_interpretation|Exercise 2: Formulae and their interpretation]]

* [[Interpretation_of_formulae_with_connectives|Exercise 3: Interpretation of formulae with connectives]]

NMTS-Group8

2016-04-03T17:57:36Z

Suzanne: /* Our podcasts */

{{MaterialUnderConstruction}}

(Back to the [[NMTS_Meeting_2#Groups|group overview]])

= Wikipage of Group 8 =

=== Comments by the NMTS-team ===

* die Lösungen direkt unter der Übung mit den Baumstrukturen finde ich nicht so richtig sinnvoll

* References: complete bibliogr. references
* Glossary: homonym: references still coming?
* Glossary: Sorts/Types - still incomplete and a distinction between sorts and types missing -> In the Basic Glossary the entry is only listed as "Types" (which makes sense), I didn't find the Sorts/Types link from the Group page in the Basic Glossary.

== Overview ==

=== Members ===

* [[User:IngoM| Ingo Müller]]
* [[User:Moonhwa9113| Moonhwa Lindemann ]]
* [[User:BorisL| Boris Lehn]]
* [[User:FlorianB| Florian Bast ]]
* [[User:Hilâl| Hilâl Ünal]]

=== Short description of the topic ===

Sorts:

In semantics, there are different sorts of entities. You distinguish between entities which represent a single person or object and entities that represent a group of persons/objects. Additionally, you differentiate between concrete and abstract entities. A concrete entity refers to a specific object, e.g. a particular being (which usually has a name); on the other hand, an abstract entity refers to a non-specific object.

'''Example:'''

The sentence ''The dodo is extinct'' refers to the entire species (of the dodo) and "the dodo" is therefore an abstract entity, i.e. a ''kind''.<br>
On the contrary, the sentence ''My dodo is extinct (or rather, dead)'', obviously neglecting the fact that dodos in general do not exist anymore, refers to a specific dodo, which thus is a concrete entity, i.e. an ''object''.

The same goes for events. An event can be either concrete or abstract.

Types:

In logic and semantics a concept of type is often used to distinguish different
kinds of expression (and of semantic value). These types are used as syntactic
categories for the expressions in the semantic representation language. Each type
will correspond to a certain set of possible denotations. <br>
The (minimal) set of basic types is {e, t}: <br>
– e (for entity) is the type of individual terms <br>
– t (for truth value) is the type of formulae <br>
All pairs <ϭ, τ> made up of (basic or complex) types ϭ, τ
are types. <ϭ, τ> is the type of functions which map
arguments of type ϭ to values of type τ. <br>
In short: The set of types is the smallest set T such that
e,tєT, and if ϭ,τ єT, then also <ϭ,τ> єT.

== References and links ==

Kearns, K. Semantics. Basingstoke: Macmillian. 2000. <br />
Lohnstein, H. Formale Semantik und natürliche Sprache. Berlin: de Gruyter. 2011.

=== Links ===
[http://www.ucl.ac.uk/english-usage/projects/noun-phrase/report.htm The English Noun Phrase: an empirical study] <br />
[http://stp.ling.uu.se/~matsd/uv/uv05/ads1/ho2.pdf UPPSALA UNIVERSITET - Algoritmer för datorlingvistisk semantik I] <br />
[http://www.cs.rhul.ac.uk/~zhaohui/LACL11.pdf Zhaohui Luo - Word Meanings in Type-Theoretical Semantics]

= Our e-learning objects =

== Our wiki pages ==


* in the Glossary:
** [[Glossary:Heteronym]]: the entry for ''Heteronymy''
** [[Glossary:Homonym]]: the entry for ''Homonymy''
** [[Glossary:Sorts/Types]]: the entry for ''Sorts/Types''

== Our podcasts ==


Sorts:

<embedvideo service="youtube" dimensions="400">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EK6tqXdmFwk&feature=youtu.be</embedvideo>

== Our materials for an interactive whiteboard ==


[http://user.uni-frankfurt.de/~sailer/nmts-wise1213/MiniPresentation-Sorts.notebook Minipresentation on sorts]

[http://user.uni-frankfurt.de/~sailer/nmts-wise1213/Sorttype.notebook Presentation on types and sorts]

== Our pictures ==

<gallery>
File:Bild0705.jpg|IngoM
File:Portrait fb.jpg|FlorianB
File:Kayseri.jpg|Hilâl
File: Moonhwa.jpg‎|Moonhwa
</gallery>

== Our exercises ==




===Exercise I (Types)===

Take a look at the following sentences! Which types does the word in ''italics'' require in each sentence?

1) Homer ''slept''. <br />
2) Homer ''choked'' Bart. <br />
3) Moe ''sold'' beer to Homer. <br />
4) Maggie ''hates'' Baby Gerald.

For the solutions, mark the following paragraph (which is seemingly empty) with your mouse.

<span style="color:#FFFFFF">
1) <e,t> - ''sleep'' is an intransitive verb that does not require an object <br />
2) <e,<e,t>> - ''choke'' is a transitive verb and requires a direct object <br />
3) <e,<e,<e,t>>> - ''sell'' is a bi-transitive verb and requires a direct object as well as an indirect object <br />
4) <e,<e,t>> - ''hate'' is a transitive verb and requires a direct object <br />
</span>

===Exercise II (Sorts)===

Decide whether the words marked in ''italics'' in the following sentences refer to concrete/abstract single/group obejcts/events!

'''Example:''' ''The election of Mayor Quimby'' took place on Sunday.

'''Solution:''' ''The election of Mayor Quimby'' refers to a concrete (single) event.

1) ''Mr. Burns'' likes his nuclear power plant. <br />
2) ''The Springfield Elementary students'' met at the gymnasium. <br />
3) ''Nuclear meltdowns'' happen a lot in Springfield. <br />
4) ''The three-eyed fish'' could be extinct soon.

For the solutions, mark the following paragraph (which is seemingly empty) with your mouse.

<span style="color:#FFFFFF">
1) ''Mr. Burns'' refers to a concrete single object, i.e. an individual. <br />
2) ''The Springfield Elementary students'' refers to a concrete group object, i.e. a group of individuals. <br />
3) ''Nuclear meltdowns'' refers to an abstract group event. <br />
4) ''The three-eyed fish'' refers to an abstract group object, i.e. a kind.
</span>

===Exercise III (Types)===

a) '''Draw a hierarchical tree of the predicate give’, which is of the type''' <e,<e,<e,t>>>: <br />
b) '''Draw a hierarchical tree of the predicate kiss’, which is of the type''' <e,<e,t>>: <br />
c) '''Draw a hierarchical tree of the predicate offer’, which is of the type''' <e,<e,<e,t>>>: <br />

The solutions are displayed below.

[[File:xyz.jpg|500px]] [[File:bla.jpg|500px]]

2014-07-28T23:22:52Z

Suzanne: /* Getting Started */

==Getting Started==

Welcome to our wiki! If you would like to contribute to it, the first thing you have to do is request an account. You can do so by clicking the "Log in / create account" Link in the upper right corner and then click on "request one" on the next page. Alternatively, just [[Special:RequestAccount|click here]].

==Formatting Text, Using Links and Images==

The first and maybe best place to start trying out the wiki syntax and play around with the functions of the wiki might be your own wiki user page. [http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Formatting This is a helpful link] that will give you a great overview on formatting in the wiki. <br />
The next thing you might want to find out is [http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Links how to create links] or how to [http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Starting_a_new_page create new pages]. You will see, this syntax is very intuitive and easy to remember, but even if you have trouble to do so, just copy and paste the relevant parts into the text box and change it according to your needs. <br />
If you wish to upload pictures, you can [[Special:Upload|do so here]] (or via the Toolbox/Special Pages in the left sidebar), find [[Help:Picture|additional information on licensing questions here]], and find some information about the formatting [http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Images on this helpful page].

== Online Exercises==

For creating online exercises, this wiki uses an extension called Quiz. To find out how to create multiple choice quizzes or gapfill exercises, please have a look at [http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Help:Quiz this page]. <br />
Another great way to create exercises are collapsible elements. If you want to know more about this, please [http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:Collapsible_elements click here].

==Information for students==

If you are a student and working on the wiki for course requirements, please remember to put this obligatory template on every page you create: <br />

<nowiki> {{MaterialUnderConstruction}} </nowiki>

Help:First Steps

2014-07-28T23:20:40Z

Suzanne: /* Information for students */

==Getting Started==

Welcome to our Wiki! If you would like to contribute to it, the first thing you have to do is request an account. You can do so by clicking the "Log in / create account" Link in the upper right corner and then click on "request one" on the next page. Alternatively, just [[Special:RequestAccount|click here]].

==Formatting Text, Using Links and Images==

The first and maybe best place to start trying out the wiki syntax and play around with the functions of the wiki might be your own wiki user page. [http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Formatting This is a helpful link] that will give you a great overview on formatting in the wiki. <br />
The next thing you might want to find out is [http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Links how to create links] or how to [http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Starting_a_new_page create new pages]. You will see, this syntax is very intuitive and easy to remember, but even if you have trouble to do so, just copy and paste the relevant parts into the text box and change it according to your needs. <br />
If you wish to upload pictures, you can [[Special:Upload|do so here]] (or via the Toolbox/Special Pages in the left sidebar), find [[Help:Picture|additional information on licensing questions here]], and find some information about the formatting [http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Images on this helpful page].

== Online Exercises==

For creating online exercises, this wiki uses an extension called Quiz. To find out how to create multiple choice quizzes or gapfill exercises, please have a look at [http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Help:Quiz this page]. <br />
Another great way to create exercises are collapsible elements. If you want to know more about this, please [http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:Collapsible_elements click here].

==Information for students==

If you are a student and working on the wiki for course requirements, please remember to put this obligatory template on every page you create: <br />

<nowiki> {{MaterialUnderConstruction}} </nowiki>

Help:First Steps

2014-07-28T23:18:36Z

Suzanne: Created page with "==Getting Started== Welcome to our Wiki! If you would like to contribute to it, the first thing you have to do is request an account. You can do so by clicking the "Log in / ..."

Help:Contents

2014-07-28T23:18:09Z

Suzanne:

New to this wiki? Have a look at [[Help:First_Steps|this page]] to see how to get started.

To keep the overall appearance of this wiki consistent, here are links to example pages to help you with the layout.

* Pictures:
** Formatting of the [[Help:Picture|author/source information for an uploaded picture]]
** [[:File:HPSG-Workshop-05122012a.jpg|Example page]]

* Projects:
** Formatting of an [[Help:Project|information page for a project]]
** [[E-LRS|Example page]]

Determine the type of ambiguity

2014-01-06T23:10:20Z

Suzanne:

Each of the following sentences is ambiguous.
# Determine the type of the ambiguity and
# determine which element in the sentence causes the ambiguity.
Choose the right option.

<quiz display=simple>
{ (1) ''Pat didn't know a guest at the party.'' <br /> <br />
Determine the type of the ambiguity
| typ="()" }

- lexical
||Of course, you could argue that the name Pat could either refer to a female person (short for Patricia) or a male person (short for Patrick). In this sense, it would be a lexical ambiguity. However, we are after a different type of ambiguity here.
- structural
||You might argue that the preposition phrase at the party could attach to the noun guest, to the verb phrase know a guest, or to the entire sentence. In each case, the truth conditions of the sentence are the same.
+ scope
||This is a scope ambiguity.
||The two readings are:<br />
||Reading 1: Not > Some<br />
||''Pat knew no guest at the party.''<br />
||More formally: ''It is not the case that there was a guest at the party that Pat knew.''<br />
||In this reading the negation has scope over the indefinite ''a guest''.<br />
||Reading 2: Some > Not<br />
||''There was one guest at the party Pat didn't know.''<br />
||More formally: ''There was a guest at that party such that it is not the case that Pat knew this guest.''<br />
||In this reading the indefinite ''a guest'' has scope over the negation.<br />
||Follow the link to get more [[Types of ambiguity|explanations]]
- collective-distributive
||For such an ambiguity to arise, we typically need at least one plural entity.

{ Determine which element in the sentence causes the ambiguity.
| typ="()" }
- the word know
||Check again which type of ambiguity we have in this sentence. This may help you to answer this question, too. You can also consult the page with the [[Types of ambiguity|explanations]].
||Of course, the word know is highly ambiguous: To mention just one example, there are cases of structural ambiguity which are caused by different complementation possibilities of the word know. One example would be I know what Alex wrote to Chris. Here the verb know either combines with an embedded interrogative clause or with a free relative, i.e., know either combines with a CP or an NP. This can be disambiguated by adding else (for the embedded interrogative reading) or ever (for the free relative).
+ the negation and the indefinite
||The sentence shows a scope ambiguity, so the scope-bearing elements are responsible for the ambiguity. In the sentence, the negation (expressed by didn't) and the indefinite NP (a guest) are scope-bearing elements. If a sentence contains two scope-bearing elements, it will usually be scopally ambiguous.
- the preposition at
||In this example, the preposition at is used as the head of the location modifier at the party.
||In other examples, the prepositions at can be responsible for ambiguities. The sentence Pat was laughing at the party, is ambiguous. The preposition at, here, could either be the head of a location modifier, as in our example above, or the head of a complement PP at the party. In this second reading at the party is the theme of the laughing, not the location of the laughing.
</quiz>

==== Navigation ====

* [[Exercise-ch1|To the exercise page for chapter 1]]
* [[Textbook-chapters|To the material by chapters overview]]
* [[FSEGA|To the main page of the textbook]]

Exercise Semantics of Predicate Logic

2014-01-06T21:04:45Z

Suzanne: /* Interpretation of formulae with logical connectives */

== Interpretation of atomic formulae ==

Interpret the following formulae as true or false. If you have not defined these relations or properties in your model use the ones given in [[ExerciseFOModels-d|a previous exercise]].

* '''father-of-someone'''('''paul''','''Lisa''')
<div class="toccolours mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="width:800px">
Check your answers
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">
'''father-of-someone'''('''paul''','''lisa''') = ''true'' iff<br />
< I('''paul'''), I('''lisa''') > ∈ I('''father-of-someone''') iff<br />
< ''Paul'', ''Lisa''> ∈ {<''Paul, Tom''>,<''Paul, Lisa''>}.

Since this is the case, the formula is true.
</div>
</div>

* '''blonde'''('''walter''')
<div class="toccolours mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="width:800px">
Check your answers
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">
'''blonde(walter)''' = ''true'' iff<br />
< I('''walter''') > ∈ I('''blonde''') iff <br />
< ''Walter'' > ∈ {< ''Alice'' >,< ''Lisa'' >}.

Since this is not the case, the overall formula is false.
</div>
</div>

* '''enjoy-watching-football-together'''('''alice''','''tom''')
<div class="toccolours mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="width:800px">
Check your answers
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">
'''enjoy-watching-football-togehter(alice,tom)''' = ''true'' iff<br />
< I('''alice'''), I('''tom''') > ∈ I('''enjoy-watching-football-together''') iff<br />
< ''Alice'', ''Tom'' > ∈ {<''Alice, Paul''>,<''Paul, Alice''>,<''Alice, Lisa''>,<''Lisa, Alice''>,<''Alice, Tom''>,<''Tom, Alice''>,<''Paul, Lisa''>,<''Lisa, Paul''>,<''Paul, Tom''>,<''Tom, Paul''>,<''Tom, Lisa''>,<''Lisa, Tom''>}

Since this is the case, the formula is true.

</div>
</div>
<br/>
<br/>

== Interpretation of formulae with logical connectives ==
Consider these two natural language sentences. While keeping in mind the scenario given in [[ExerciseFOModels-d|a previous exercise]], create complex formulae with logical connectives and compute the interpretation, respectively.

'''a.)''' Alice is a dog and Lisa and Tom enjoy watching football together.

<div class="toccolours mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="width:800px">
Check your answers
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">Sentence: Alice is a dog and Lisa and Tom enjoy watching football together.

Here the interpretation in predicate logic notation:

<nowiki>[[</nowiki>'''dog (Alice) Ʌ enjoy-watching-football-together (Lisa,Tom)''']] = ''false''<br/>

because <nowiki>[[</nowiki>'''dog (Alice)''']]= ''false'' <br/>

::because I('''Alice''')= <''Alice''> and <''Alice''> is NOT an element of I('''dog''') <br/>

and <nowiki>[[</nowiki>'''enjoy-watching-soccer-together (Lisa,Tom)''']] = ''true'' <br/>

::because I('''Lisa''')= <''Lisa''>, I('''Tom''')= <''Tom''> and <''Lisa,Tom''> '''is''' in the set of I('''enjoy-watching-football-together'''). <br/>

'''Conjunction (Ʌ)''': Both atomic formulae have to be true in order for the complex formula to be true.
</div>
</div>

'''b.)''' Tom is not Paul's daughter or Tom is tall.

<div class="toccolours mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="width:800px">
Check your answers
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">
Sentence: Tom is not Paul's daughter or Tom is tall.

Here the interpretation in predicate logic notation:

<nowiki>[[</nowiki>'''¬daughter-of-someone (Tom,Paul) v tall(Tom)''']] = ''true'' <br/>

because <nowiki>[[</nowiki>'''¬daughter-of-someone (Tom,Paul)''']]= ''true'' <br/>

::because I('''Tom''')= <''Tom''>, I('''Paul''')= <''Paul''> and <''Tom,Paul''> is NOT in the set of I('''daughter-of-someone''') <br/>

and <nowiki>[[</nowiki>'''tall(Tom)''']] = ''false'' <br/>

::because I('''Tom''')= <''Tom''> and <''Tom''> is NOT an element of I('''tall'''). <br/>

'''Disjunction (v)''': At least one of the atomic formulae has to be true in order for the complex formula to be true.
</div>
</div>

<hr />
Back to
* the [[Exercise-ch2|exercises for chapter 2]]
* the material for [[Textbook-chapters#Chapter_2:_Predicate_logic|chapter 2]]
* the overview over [[Textbook-chapters|all chapters]]

Exercise Semantics of Predicate Logic

2014-01-06T21:04:17Z

Suzanne: /* Interpretation of formulae with logical connectives */

== Interpretation of atomic formulae ==

Interpret the following formulae as true or false. If you have not defined these relations or properties in your model use the ones given in [[ExerciseFOModels-d|a previous exercise]].

* '''father-of-someone'''('''paul''','''Lisa''')
<div class="toccolours mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="width:800px">
Check your answers
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">
'''father-of-someone'''('''paul''','''lisa''') = ''true'' iff<br />
< I('''paul'''), I('''lisa''') > ∈ I('''father-of-someone''') iff<br />
< ''Paul'', ''Lisa''> ∈ {<''Paul, Tom''>,<''Paul, Lisa''>}.

Since this is the case, the formula is true.
</div>
</div>

* '''blonde'''('''walter''')
<div class="toccolours mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="width:800px">
Check your answers
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">
'''blonde(walter)''' = ''true'' iff<br />
< I('''walter''') > ∈ I('''blonde''') iff <br />
< ''Walter'' > ∈ {< ''Alice'' >,< ''Lisa'' >}.

Since this is not the case, the overall formula is false.
</div>
</div>

* '''enjoy-watching-football-together'''('''alice''','''tom''')
<div class="toccolours mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="width:800px">
Check your answers
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">
'''enjoy-watching-football-togehter(alice,tom)''' = ''true'' iff<br />
< I('''alice'''), I('''tom''') > ∈ I('''enjoy-watching-football-together''') iff<br />
< ''Alice'', ''Tom'' > ∈ {<''Alice, Paul''>,<''Paul, Alice''>,<''Alice, Lisa''>,<''Lisa, Alice''>,<''Alice, Tom''>,<''Tom, Alice''>,<''Paul, Lisa''>,<''Lisa, Paul''>,<''Paul, Tom''>,<''Tom, Paul''>,<''Tom, Lisa''>,<''Lisa, Tom''>}

Since this is the case, the formula is true.

</div>
</div>
<br/>
<br/>

== Interpretation of formulae with logical connectives ==
Consider these two natural language sentences. While keeping in mind the scenario given in [[ExerciseFOModels-d|a previous exercise]], create complex formulae with logical connectives and compute the interpretation, respectively.

'''a.)''' Alice is a dog and Lisa and Tom enjoy watching football together.

<div class="toccolours mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="width:800px">
Check your answers
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">Sentence: Alice is a dog and Lisa and Tom enjoy watching football together.

Here the interpretation in predicate logic notation:

<nowiki>[[</nowiki>'''dog (Alice) Ʌ enjoy-watching-football-together (Lisa,Tom)''']] = ''false''<br/>

because <nowiki>[[</nowiki>'''dog (Alice)''']]= ''false'' <br/>

::because I('''Alice''')= <''Alice''> and <''Alice''> is NOT an element of I('''dog''') <br/>

and <nowiki>[[</nowiki>'''enjoy-watching-soccer-together (Lisa,Tom)''']] = ''true'' <br/>

::because I('''Lisa''')= <''Lisa''>, I('''Tom''')= <''Tom''> and <''Lisa,Tom''> '''is''' in the set of I('''enjoy-watching-football-together'''). <br/>

'''Conjunction (Ʌ)''': Both atomic formulae have to be true in order for the complex formula to be true.
</div>
</div>

'''b.)''' Tom is not Paul's daughter or Tom is tall.

<div class="toccolours mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="width:800px">
Check your answers
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">
Sentence: Tom is not Paul's daughter or Tom is tall.

Here the interpretation in predicate logic notation:

<nowiki>[[</nowiki>'''¬daughter-of-someone (Tom,Paul) v tall(Tom)''']] = ''true'' <br/>

because <nowiki>[[</nowiki>'''¬daughter-of-someone (Tom,Paul)''']]= ''true'' <br/>

::because I('''Tom''')= <''Tom''>, I('''Paul''')= <''Paul''> and <''Tom,Paul''> is NOT in the set of I('''daughter-of-someone''') <br/>

and <nowiki>[[</nowiki>'''tall(Tom)''']] = ''false'' <br/>

::because I('''Tom''')= <''Tom''> and <''Tom''> is NOT an element of I('''tall'''). <br/>

'''Disjunction (v)''': At least one of the atomic formulae has to be true in order for the complex formula to be true.

</div>
</div>

<hr />
Back to
* the [[Exercise-ch2|exercises for chapter 2]]
* the material for [[Textbook-chapters#Chapter_2:_Predicate_logic|chapter 2]]
* the overview over [[Textbook-chapters|all chapters]]

Exercise Semantics of Predicate Logic

2014-01-06T21:03:23Z

Suzanne: /* Interpretation of formulae with logical connectives */

== Interpretation of atomic formulae ==

Interpret the following formulae as true or false. If you have not defined these relations or properties in your model use the ones given in [[ExerciseFOModels-d|a previous exercise]].

* '''father-of-someone'''('''paul''','''Lisa''')
<div class="toccolours mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="width:800px">
Check your answers
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">
'''father-of-someone'''('''paul''','''lisa''') = ''true'' iff<br />
< I('''paul'''), I('''lisa''') > ∈ I('''father-of-someone''') iff<br />
< ''Paul'', ''Lisa''> ∈ {<''Paul, Tom''>,<''Paul, Lisa''>}.

Since this is the case, the formula is true.
</div>
</div>

* '''blonde'''('''walter''')
<div class="toccolours mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="width:800px">
Check your answers
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">
'''blonde(walter)''' = ''true'' iff<br />
< I('''walter''') > ∈ I('''blonde''') iff <br />
< ''Walter'' > ∈ {< ''Alice'' >,< ''Lisa'' >}.

Since this is not the case, the overall formula is false.
</div>
</div>

* '''enjoy-watching-football-together'''('''alice''','''tom''')
<div class="toccolours mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="width:800px">
Check your answers
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">
'''enjoy-watching-football-togehter(alice,tom)''' = ''true'' iff<br />
< I('''alice'''), I('''tom''') > ∈ I('''enjoy-watching-football-together''') iff<br />
< ''Alice'', ''Tom'' > ∈ {<''Alice, Paul''>,<''Paul, Alice''>,<''Alice, Lisa''>,<''Lisa, Alice''>,<''Alice, Tom''>,<''Tom, Alice''>,<''Paul, Lisa''>,<''Lisa, Paul''>,<''Paul, Tom''>,<''Tom, Paul''>,<''Tom, Lisa''>,<''Lisa, Tom''>}

Since this is the case, the formula is true.

</div>
</div>
<br/>
<br/>

== Interpretation of formulae with logical connectives ==
Consider these two natural language sentences. While keeping in mind the scenario given in [[ExerciseFOModels-d|a previous exercise]], create complex formulae with logical connectives and compute the interpretation, respectively.

'''a.)''' Alice is a dog and Lisa and Tom enjoy watching football together.

<div class="toccolours mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="width:800px">
Check your answers
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">Sentence: Alice is a dog and Lisa and Tom enjoy watching football together.

Here the interpretation in predicate logic notation:

<nowiki>[[</nowiki>'''dog (Alice) Ʌ enjoy-watching-football-together (Lisa,Tom)''']] = ''false''<br/>

because <nowiki>[[</nowiki>'''dog (Alice)''']]= ''false'' <br/>

::because I('''Alice''')= <''Alice''> and <''Alice''> is NOT an element of I('''dog''') <br/>

and <nowiki>[[</nowiki>'''enjoy-watching-soccer-together (Lisa,Tom)''']] = ''true'' <br/>

::because I('''Lisa''')= <''Lisa''>, I('''Tom''')= <''Tom''> and <''Lisa,Tom''> '''is''' in the set of I('''enjoy-watching-football-together'''). <br/>

'''Conjunction (Ʌ)''': Both atomic formulae have to be true in order for the complex formula to be true.
</div>
</div>

'''b.)''' Tom is not Paul's daughter or Tom is tall.

'''[[AnswerEX3-b|Check your solution]]'''

<hr />
Back to
* the [[Exercise-ch2|exercises for chapter 2]]
* the material for [[Textbook-chapters#Chapter_2:_Predicate_logic|chapter 2]]
* the overview over [[Textbook-chapters|all chapters]]

Exercise Semantics of Predicate Logic

2014-01-06T21:02:19Z

Suzanne: /* Interpretation of atomic formulae */

Exercise Semantics of Predicate Logic

2014-01-06T21:01:06Z

Suzanne: /* Interpretation of atomic formulae */

Exercise Semantics of Predicate Logic

2014-01-06T21:00:48Z

Suzanne: /* Interpretation of atomic formulae */

Exercise Semantics of Predicate Logic

2014-01-06T21:00:35Z

Suzanne: /* Interpretation of atomic formulae */

Exercise Semantics of Predicate Logic

2014-01-06T20:59:09Z

Suzanne: Undo revision 5265 by Suzanne (talk)

== Interpretation of atomic formulae ==

Interpret the following formulae as true or false. If you have not defined these relations or properties in your model use the ones given in [[ExerciseFOModels-d|a previous exercise]].
To check your answers click on the single formulae.

* [[ExerciseFOLSemantics-1a|'''father-of-someone'''('''paul''','''Lisa''')]]
* [[ExerciseFOLSemantics-1b|'''blonde'''('''walter''')]]
* [[ExerciseFOLSemantics-1c|'''enjoy-watching-football-together'''('''alice''','''tom''')]]

== Interpretation of formulae with logical connectives ==
Consider these two natural language sentences. While keeping in mind the scenario given in [[ExerciseFOModels-d|a previous exercise]], create complex formulae with logical connectives and compute the interpretation, respectively.

'''a.)''' Alice is a dog and Lisa and Tom enjoy watching football together.

'''[[AnswerEX3-a|Check your solution]]'''

'''b.)''' Tom is not Paul's daughter or Tom is tall.

'''[[AnswerEX3-b|Check your solution]]'''

<hr />
Back to
* the [[Exercise-ch2|exercises for chapter 2]]
* the material for [[Textbook-chapters#Chapter_2:_Predicate_logic|chapter 2]]
* the overview over [[Textbook-chapters|all chapters]]

2014-01-06T20:41:02Z

Suzanne:

Exercise Different types of ambiguity

2014-01-06T20:32:36Z

Suzanne: /* Different types of ambiguity */

{{CreatedByStudents1213}}<br />Involved participants: [[User:Nicki| Nicki]], [[User:Marc_M| Marc M]], [[User:Leo| Leo]], [[User:Anna_Böcher| Anna Böcher]], [[User:Lorena| Lorena]]

==Different types of ambiguity==

<quiz display=simple>

{ Phrases and sentences as a whole can have more than one meaning. How is this form of ambiguity called?
|type="[]"}
+ Scope Ambiguity
|| Nearly there: The answer is correct, but there is another possibilty as well. <br/>
|| Scope ambiguity deals with the scope of quantifiers (every, some ...) and is a form of structural ambiguity. <br/>
|| e.g.
|| "Everyone loves someone." <br/>
|| The sentence can be read in the two following ways. <br/>
|| *Everyone loves the same someone.
|| *Everyone loves some different person.
|| See the Glossary entry on [[Glossary:Scope Ambiguity| Scope Ambiguity]] for more information. <br/>

- Lexical Ambiguity
|| Sorry, the answer is not correct. <br/>
|| Lexical ambiguity means that the ambiguity arises on the level of the lexeme (word).
|| e.g.
|| "I was right next to the '''bank''' when I fainted, otherwise I might not have survived."
|| *The speaker might have fainted on the water next to the bank of a river, so he did not drown.
|| *The speaker fainted next to a financial institute, so enough people were there who could help him.
|| See the Glossary entry on [[Glossary:Lexical_Ambiguity|Lexical Ambiguity]] for more information. <br/>

+ Structural Ambiguity
|| Nearly there, your answer is correct but there is another possible solution. <br/>
||Structural ambiguity deals with ambiguity on the level of syntax.
||e.g.
||"Old women and men." <br/>
||It is unclear to which noun (women and/or men) the adjective old refers, so the sentence could be read in the two following ways:
||*Both women and men are old.
||*Old only refers to the women. Men are not specified.
||See the Glossary entry on [[Glossary:Structural Ambiguity| Structural Ambiguity]] for more information. <br/>

</quiz>

'''2.''' Which two meanings does the following sentence contain? Paraphrase them. <br/> ''We need more intelligent administrators.''

<div class="toccolours mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="width:800px">
Check your solutions here
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">''We need more intelligent administrators.'' <br/>
Here we have a case of structural ambiguity, i.e. the ambiguity arises on the sentence level. <br/>
There are two different ways how this sentence can be read:<br/>
Possibility 1: <br/>
We have enough administrators, but they are not bright enough and need to become more intelligent.<br/>
Here, ''more'' is used as a comparative particle. So, ''more intelligent'' forms one constituent.<br/>
Possibility 2:<br/>
We do not have enough administrators and need more administrators who are intelligent.<br/>
In this case, ''more'' is used as a determiner. Thus, it combines with the phrase ''intelligent administrators''.<br/></div>
</div>

'''3.''' Think of an ambiguous phrase or sentence on your own and explain its ambiguity.

<div class="toccolours mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="width:800px">
Check your solutions here
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">As you should already have learned: Many jokes and puns are based on ambiguity. Here are some more examples:
1. ''I rushed out and killed a huge lion in my pajamas!'' - ''How did the lion get in your pajamas?'' <br/>
2. Man in restaurant: ''I will have two lamb-chops. And make them lean, please.'' - Waiter: ''To which side?'' <br/>
3. ''Why was Cinderella thrown off the football game?'' - ''Because she ran from the ball.''
Example 1 is based on the double meaning of "in my pajamas". Most likely the first person meant he or she was wearing pajamas while killing the lion. The second speaker deliberately misunderstood him. The 2nd and 3rd example is based on the double meaning of one word. In the 2nd example this is ''lean''; the first reading and certainly what the guest meant: Without a lot of fat. The waiter then referred to the verb ''to lean''. In the 3rd example, the ambiguous word is ''ball'': ''sport'' vs. ''dress-ball'' make up this joke.</div>
</div>

==== Navigation ====

* [[Exercise-ch1|To the exercise page for chapter 1]]
* [[Textbook-chapters|To the material by chapters overview]]
* [[FSEGA|To the main page of the textbook]]

Exercise Different types of ambiguity

2014-01-06T20:32:18Z

Suzanne: /* Different types of ambiguity */

Exercise Different types of ambiguity

2014-01-06T20:30:46Z

Suzanne: /* Different types of ambiguity */

{{CreatedByStudents1213}}<br />Involved participants: [[User:Nicki| Nicki]], [[User:Marc_M| Marc M]], [[User:Leo| Leo]], [[User:Anna_Böcher| Anna Böcher]], [[User:Lorena| Lorena]]

==Different types of ambiguity==

<quiz display=simple>

{ Phrases and sentences as a whole can have more than one meaning. How is this form of ambiguity called?
|type="[]"}
+ Scope Ambiguity
|| Nearly there: The answer is correct, but there is another possibilty as well. <br/>
|| Scope ambiguity deals with the scope of quantifiers (every, some ...) and is a form of structural ambiguity. <br/>
|| e.g.
|| "Everyone loves someone." <br/>
|| The sentence can be read in the two following ways. <br/>
|| *Everyone loves the same someone.
|| *Everyone loves some different person.
|| See the Glossary entry on [[Glossary:Scope Ambiguity| Scope Ambiguity]] for more information. <br/>

- Lexical Ambiguity
|| Sorry, the answer is not correct. <br/>
|| Lexical ambiguity means that the ambiguity arises on the level of the lexeme (word).
|| e.g.
|| "I was right next to the '''bank''' when I fainted, otherwise I might not have survived."
|| *The speaker might have fainted on the water next to the bank of a river, so he did not drown.
|| *The speaker fainted next to a financial institute, so enough people were there who could help him.
|| See the Glossary entry on [[Glossary:Lexical_Ambiguity|Lexical Ambiguity]] for more information. <br/>

+ Structural Ambiguity
|| Nearly there, your answer is correct but there is another possible solution. <br/>
||Structural ambiguity deals with ambiguity on the level of syntax.
||e.g.
||"Old women and men." <br/>
||It is unclear to which noun (women and/or men) the adjective old refers, so the sentence could be read in the two following ways:
||*Both women and men are old.
||*Old only refers to the women. Men are not specified.
||See the Glossary entry on [[Glossary:Structural Ambiguity| Structural Ambiguity]] for more information. <br/>

</quiz>

'''3.''' Which two meanings does the following sentence contain? Paraphrase them. <br/> ''We need more intelligent administrators.''

<div class="toccolours mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="width:800px">
Check your solutions here
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">''We need more intelligent administrators.'' <br/>
Here we have a case of structural ambiguity, i.e. the ambiguity arises on the sentence level. <br/>
There are two different ways how this sentence can be read:<br/>
Possibility 1: <br/>
We have enough administrators, but they are not bright enough and need to become more intelligent.<br/>
Here, ''more'' is used as a comparative particle. So, ''more intelligent'' forms one constituent.<br/>
Possibility 2:<br/>
We do not have enough administrators and need more administrators who are intelligent.<br/>
In this case, ''more'' is used as a determiner. Thus, it combines with the phrase ''intelligent administrators''.<br/></div>
</div>

{Think of an ambiguous phrase or sentence on your own and explain its ambiguity.
|type="()"}
+ Done
|| As you should already have learned: Many jokes and puns are based on ambiguity. Here are some more examples:
|| 1. ''I rushed out and killed a huge lion in my pajamas!'' - ''How did the lion get in your pajamas?'' <br/>
|| 2. Man in restaurant: ''I will have two lamb-chops. And make them lean, please.'' - Waiter: ''To which side?'' <br/>
|| 3. ''Why was Cinderella thrown off the football game?'' - ''Because she ran from the ball.''
|| Example 1 is based on the double meaning of "in my pajamas". Most likely the first person meant he or she was wearing pajamas while killing the lion. The second speaker deliberately misunderstood him. The 2nd and 3rd example is based on the double meaning of one word. In the 2nd example this is ''lean''; the first reading and certainly what the guest meant: Without a lot of fat. The waiter then referred to the verb ''to lean''. In the 3rd example, the ambiguous word is ''ball'': ''sport'' vs. ''dress-ball'' make up this joke.

==== Navigation ====

* [[Exercise-ch1|To the exercise page for chapter 1]]
* [[Textbook-chapters|To the material by chapters overview]]
* [[FSEGA|To the main page of the textbook]]

Exercise Different types of ambiguity

2014-01-06T20:30:28Z

Suzanne: /* Different types of ambiguity */

{{CreatedByStudents1213}}<br />Involved participants: [[User:Nicki| Nicki]], [[User:Marc_M| Marc M]], [[User:Leo| Leo]], [[User:Anna_Böcher| Anna Böcher]], [[User:Lorena| Lorena]]

==Different types of ambiguity==

<quiz display=simple>

{ Phrases and sentences as a whole can have more than one meaning. How is this form of ambiguity called?
|type="[]"}
+ Scope Ambiguity
|| Nearly there: The answer is correct, but there is another possibilty as well. <br/>
|| Scope ambiguity deals with the scope of quantifiers (every, some ...) and is a form of structural ambiguity. <br/>
|| e.g.
|| "Everyone loves someone." <br/>
|| The sentence can be read in the two following ways. <br/>
|| *Everyone loves the same someone.
|| *Everyone loves some different person.
|| See the Glossary entry on [[Glossary:Scope Ambiguity| Scope Ambiguity]] for more information. <br/>

- Lexical Ambiguity
|| Sorry, the answer is not correct. <br/>
|| Lexical ambiguity means that the ambiguity arises on the level of the lexeme (word).
|| e.g.
|| "I was right next to the '''bank''' when I fainted, otherwise I might not have survived."
|| *The speaker might have fainted on the water next to the bank of a river, so he did not drown.
|| *The speaker fainted next to a financial institute, so enough people were there who could help him.
|| See the Glossary entry on [[Glossary:Lexical_Ambiguity|Lexical Ambiguity]] for more information. <br/>

+ Structural Ambiguity
|| Nearly there, your answer is correct but there is another possible solution. <br/>
||Structural ambiguity deals with ambiguity on the level of syntax.
||e.g.
||"Old women and men." <br/>
||It is unclear to which noun (women and/or men) the adjective old refers, so the sentence could be read in the two following ways:
||*Both women and men are old.
||*Old only refers to the women. Men are not specified.
||See the Glossary entry on [[Glossary:Structural Ambiguity| Structural Ambiguity]] for more information. <br/>

'''3.''' Which two meanings does the following sentence contain? Paraphrase them. <br/> ''We need more intelligent administrators.''

<div class="toccolours mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="width:800px">
Check your solutions here
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">''We need more intelligent administrators.'' <br/>
Here we have a case of structural ambiguity, i.e. the ambiguity arises on the sentence level. <br/>
There are two different ways how this sentence can be read:<br/>
Possibility 1: <br/>
We have enough administrators, but they are not bright enough and need to become more intelligent.<br/>
Here, ''more'' is used as a comparative particle. So, ''more intelligent'' forms one constituent.<br/>
Possibility 2:<br/>
We do not have enough administrators and need more administrators who are intelligent.<br/>
In this case, ''more'' is used as a determiner. Thus, it combines with the phrase ''intelligent administrators''.<br/></div>
</div>

{Think of an ambiguous phrase or sentence on your own and explain its ambiguity.
|type="()"}
+ Done
|| As you should already have learned: Many jokes and puns are based on ambiguity. Here are some more examples:
|| 1. ''I rushed out and killed a huge lion in my pajamas!'' - ''How did the lion get in your pajamas?'' <br/>
|| 2. Man in restaurant: ''I will have two lamb-chops. And make them lean, please.'' - Waiter: ''To which side?'' <br/>
|| 3. ''Why was Cinderella thrown off the football game?'' - ''Because she ran from the ball.''
|| Example 1 is based on the double meaning of "in my pajamas". Most likely the first person meant he or she was wearing pajamas while killing the lion. The second speaker deliberately misunderstood him. The 2nd and 3rd example is based on the double meaning of one word. In the 2nd example this is ''lean''; the first reading and certainly what the guest meant: Without a lot of fat. The waiter then referred to the verb ''to lean''. In the 3rd example, the ambiguous word is ''ball'': ''sport'' vs. ''dress-ball'' make up this joke.

</quiz>

==== Navigation ====

* [[Exercise-ch1|To the exercise page for chapter 1]]
* [[Textbook-chapters|To the material by chapters overview]]
* [[FSEGA|To the main page of the textbook]]

Exercise General definition of ambiguity

2014-01-06T20:28:40Z

Suzanne: /* General definition of ambiguity */

{{CreatedByStudents1213}}<br /> ''Involved participants: [[User:Nicki| Nicki]], [[User:Marc_M| Marc M]], [[User:Leo| Leo]], [[User:Anna_Böcher| Anna Böcher]], [[User:Lorena| Lorena]]

==General definition of ambiguity==
<quiz display=simple>

{ What is an ambiguous word?
|type="()" }
- a word with only one meaning
|| A word with just one meaning is '''un'''ambiguous. <br/>
|| See also the glossary entry on [[Glossary:Ambiguity#Ambiguity|Ambiguity]] for more information.<br/>
- a polysemous word
|| Polysemous means that a sound sequence has two or more different, but '''semantically related''' meanings. <br/>
|| e.g., the word '''man''' is polysemous: a human being (vs. animal), a male human being (vs. female), an adult male human being (vs. boy)
|| See the Glossary entry on [[Glossary:Polysemy|Polysemy]] for more information. <br/>
+ a homophone word
|| A homophone is a form that has two or more distinct meanings, but is pronounced in the same way. <br/>
|| e.g., the word '''bank''' is ambigous: a financial institute, the side of a river
|| See the Glossary entry on [[Glossary:Homophony| Homophony]] for more information. <br/>

{ What is the technical term for words that have more than one meaning?
|type="()" }
- scope ambiguity
|| Scope ambiguity deals with the scope of quantifiers (''every'', ''some'' ...) and leads to structurally distinct logical forms.
|| e.g.''Everyone loves someone.' The sentence can be read in the two following ways. <br/>
|| Reading 1: ''Everyone loves the same someone.''; Reading 2: ''Everyone loves some different person.''
|| See the Glossary entry on [[Glossary:Scope Ambiguity| Scope Ambiguity]] for more information. <br/>
+ lexical ambiguity
|| This correct. Lexical ambiguity means that the ambiguity arises on the level of the lexeme (word).
|| e.g. ''I was right next to the '''bank''' when I fainted, otherwise I might not have survived.''
|| The speaker might have fainted on the water next to the bank of a river, so he did not drown.
|| The speaker fainted next to a financial institute, so enough people were there who could help him.
|| See the Glossary entry on [[Glossary:Lexical_Ambiguity|Lexical Ambiguity]] for more information. <br/>
- structural ambiguity
|| Structural ambiguity deals with ambiguity on the level of syntax.
|| e.g. ''old women and men'': It is unclear to which noun (women and/or men) the adjective old refers,
|| so the sentence could be read in the two following ways: (i) Both women and men are old. (ii) only the women are said to be old.
|| See the Glossary entry on [[Glossary:Structural Ambiguity| Structural Ambiguity]] for more information. <br/>

{ Which word is the ambiguous word in the sentence?
|type="{}" }
a) I bought it without any further inquiry: { bought (i) }
|| '''Bought''' can be read in at least the two following ways: <br/>
|| *Bought as "purchased": I purchased it without any further inquiry
|| *Bought as "believed": I believed it without any further inquiry.
b) There is no bank in this town: { bank (i) }
|| '''Bank''' can be understood in two different ways:
|| *Bank as something to sit on: "There is not a bank to sit on in this town."
|| *Bank as financial institution: "There is no financial institution in this town."

</quiz>

'''4.''' Think of three sentences in which the word “hot” has different meanings.

<div class="toccolours mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="width:800px">
Check your solution here
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">
The Oxford dictionary proposes the following six different solutions (according to the dictionary you used other solutions might be possible:
* This girl is really hot. -> hot = good looking
* This pepper is really hot. -> hot = extremely spicy
* This soup is really hot. -> hot = warm
* That was a really hot debate -> hot = involving much activity
* Marc is very hot on Hifi. -> hot = very knowledgable, interested in
* The whole situation was too hot to be handled by us alone -> hot = difficult to deal with
If you want to check if a word has different meanings you can consult a dictionary. A good address is http://oxforddictionaries.com <br/>
</div>
</div>

<br/>
<br/>

==== Navigation ====

* [[Exercise-ch1|To the exercise page for chapter 1]]
* [[Textbook-chapters|To the material by chapters overview]]
* [[FSEGA|To the main page of the textbook]]

Exercise General definition of ambiguity

2014-01-06T20:28:12Z

Suzanne: /* General definition of ambiguity */

{{CreatedByStudents1213}}<br /> ''Involved participants: [[User:Nicki| Nicki]], [[User:Marc_M| Marc M]], [[User:Leo| Leo]], [[User:Anna_Böcher| Anna Böcher]], [[User:Lorena| Lorena]]

==General definition of ambiguity==
<quiz display=simple>

{ What is an ambiguous word?
|type="()" }
- a word with only one meaning
|| A word with just one meaning is '''un'''ambiguous. <br/>
|| See also the glossary entry on [[Glossary:Ambiguity#Ambiguity|Ambiguity]] for more information.<br/>
- a polysemous word
|| Polysemous means that a sound sequence has two or more different, but '''semantically related''' meanings. <br/>
|| e.g., the word '''man''' is polysemous: a human being (vs. animal), a male human being (vs. female), an adult male human being (vs. boy)
|| See the Glossary entry on [[Glossary:Polysemy|Polysemy]] for more information. <br/>
+ a homophone word
|| A homophone is a form that has two or more distinct meanings, but is pronounced in the same way. <br/>
|| e.g., the word '''bank''' is ambigous: a financial institute, the side of a river
|| See the Glossary entry on [[Glossary:Homophony| Homophony]] for more information. <br/>

{ What is the technical term for words that have more than one meaning?
|type="()" }
- scope ambiguity
|| Scope ambiguity deals with the scope of quantifiers (''every'', ''some'' ...) and leads to structurally distinct logical forms.
|| e.g.''Everyone loves someone.' The sentence can be read in the two following ways. <br/>
|| Reading 1: ''Everyone loves the same someone.''; Reading 2: ''Everyone loves some different person.''
|| See the Glossary entry on [[Glossary:Scope Ambiguity| Scope Ambiguity]] for more information. <br/>
+ lexical ambiguity
|| This correct. Lexical ambiguity means that the ambiguity arises on the level of the lexeme (word).
|| e.g. ''I was right next to the '''bank''' when I fainted, otherwise I might not have survived.''
|| The speaker might have fainted on the water next to the bank of a river, so he did not drown.
|| The speaker fainted next to a financial institute, so enough people were there who could help him.
|| See the Glossary entry on [[Glossary:Lexical_Ambiguity|Lexical Ambiguity]] for more information. <br/>
- structural ambiguity
|| Structural ambiguity deals with ambiguity on the level of syntax.
|| e.g. ''old women and men'': It is unclear to which noun (women and/or men) the adjective old refers,
|| so the sentence could be read in the two following ways: (i) Both women and men are old. (ii) only the women are said to be old.
|| See the Glossary entry on [[Glossary:Structural Ambiguity| Structural Ambiguity]] for more information. <br/>

{ Which word is the ambiguous word in the sentence?
|type="{}" }
a) I bought it without any further inquiry: { bought (i) }
|| '''Bought''' can be read in at least the two following ways: <br/>
|| *Bought as "purchased": I purchased it without any further inquiry
|| *Bought as "believed": I believed it without any further inquiry.
b) There is no bank in this town: { bank (i) }
|| '''Bank''' can be understood in two different ways:
|| *Bank as something to sit on: "There is not a bank to sit on in this town."
|| *Bank as financial institution: "There is no financial institution in this town."

</quiz>

'''4.''' Think of three sentences in which the word “hot” has different meanings.

<div class="toccolours mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="width:800px">
Check your solution here
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">
The Oxford dictionary proposes the following six different solutions (according to the dictionary you used other solutions might be possible:
* This girl is really hot. -> hot = good looking
* This pepper is really hot. -> hot = extremely spicy
* This soup is really hot. -> hot = warm
* That was a really hot debate -> hot = involving much activity
* Marc is very hot on Hifi. -> hot = very knowledgable, interested in
* The whole situation was too hot to be handled by us alone -> hot = difficult to deal with
If you want to check if a word has different meanings you can consult a dictionary. A good address is http://oxforddictionaries.com <br/>
</div>
</div>

==== Navigation ====

* [[Exercise-ch1|To the exercise page for chapter 1]]
* [[Textbook-chapters|To the material by chapters overview]]
* [[FSEGA|To the main page of the textbook]]