Semantics 2, WiSe 2016/17: Difference between revisions

From Lexical Resource Semantics
Jump to navigation Jump to search
 
(16 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
<span style="color:#FF0000">'''NEW ROOM: IG 3.214 (Sailer's office)'''</span>
= Preparational material =
= Preparational material =
== Course description ==
== Course description ==
Line 22: Line 24:
If you have successfully passed the '''written exam''' of a Semantics 1 course by Frank Richter or Manfred Sailer in one of the last three terms, you need not do the entrance test.
If you have successfully passed the '''written exam''' of a Semantics 1 course by Frank Richter or Manfred Sailer in one of the last three terms, you need not do the entrance test.


= Material for week 2 =
= Material for week 5 =


Exercise sheet: [[File:SoSe16-mockexam.pdf|pdf file]]
== Homework ==


The examples in the text are based on Shakespeare's play ''Macbeth''. The full text of the play is available on [http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/2264 Projekt Gutenberg].
* Read Chapter 5, section 5.4 of the textbook.
* Provide the lexical entries of an intransitive and a ditransitive verb (including the local semantics!)


We will uses the movie ''Back to the Future'' in class.
= Material for week 4 =


== Background links ==
== Slides ==


* Predicate logic:  
Slides: [[File:WS1617-Interface-slides04-final.pdf]]
: https://www.lexical-resource-semantics.de/wiki/index.php/Semantics_1,_SoSe_2016_(Sailer):_Week_3
: https://www.lexical-resource-semantics.de/wiki/index.php/Semantics_1,_SoSe_2016_(Sailer):_Weeks_6_and_7
* Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar (HPSG):
* Lexical Resource Semantics (LRS): https://www.lexical-resource-semantics.de/wiki/index.php/Semantics_1,_SoSe_2016_(Sailer)


== Homework for week 4 ==


== Task 1: Ambiguity ==
* Read Chapter 5, section 5.1-5.3 of the textbook. You are welcome to read Section 5.4 as well. (Section 5.4. is long but not very densely written)
* Provide the PARTS lists for the words and phrases for our example Marty likes Jennifer from week 2. What are the possible EXCONT-values for the sentence?


Consider the following ambiguous sentences.
<!-- Additional [[Semantics_2,_WiSe_2016/17_Material_Week_2|material for week 4]]. -->
# For '''each''' of these, determine the type of ambiguity.
# Provide an unambiguous paraphrase for the possible readings.


(1)
= Material for week 3 =
a. Duncan trusted Macbeth because he was a thane.
<div class="toccolours mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="width:800px">
Check your answer
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">
# Type of ambiguity: referential ambiguity
# Reading 1: ''he'' refers to ''Macbeth''. Paraphrase: ''Duncan trusted Macbeth because Macbeth was a thane.''<br />Reading 2: ''he'' refers to ''Duncan''. Paraphrase: ''Duncan trusted Macbeth because Duncan was a thane.''
</div></div>


b. Every king trusts a thane.
== Homework for week 3 ==
<div class="toccolours mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="width:800px">
Check your answer
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">
# Type of ambiguity: scope ambiguity
# Reading 1: ''every'' takes scope over ''a''. Paraphrase: ''For every king there is at least one thane such that the king trusts that thane.''<br />Reading 2: ''a'' takes scope over ''every''. Paraphrase: ''There is one particular thane such that each king trusts this thane.''
</div></div>


b. Macbeth and Macduff are married.
* Read Chapter 3 of the textbook, p.79-104
<div class="toccolours mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="width:800px">
* Provide the logical form of the sentence: ''Marty travelled.''  
Check your answer
* Compute the truth conditions of the sentence in your model.
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">
* Provide the lexical entries and the syntactic analysis of the sentence (indicate the features PHON, HEAD, and SUBCAT)
# Type of ambiguity: collective-distributive ambiguity
# Reading 1: collective reading. Paraphrase: ''Macbeth and Macduff are married to each other''<br />Reading 2: distributive reading. Paraphrase: ''Macbeth and Macduff are both married, but not to each other.''
</div></div>


b. Macbeth killed a king with a dagger.
== Slides of week 3 ==
<div class="toccolours mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="width:800px">
Check your answer
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">
# Type of ambiguity: structural ambiguity
# Reading 1: the PP ''with a dagger'' is a modifier of the verb ''kill'' Paraphrase: ''Macbeth used a dagger to kill a king.''<br />Reading 2: the PP ''with a dagger'' is a modifier of the noun ''king''. Paraphrase: ''Macbeth killed a king who had a dagger.''
</div></div>


Slides: [[File:Sem2-slides03-final.pdf]]


== Task 2: Model and Interpretation ==
= Material for week 2 =


<!-- (Note: For this task you do not need to use the eventuality variable) -->
Exercise sheet: [[File:SoSe16-mockexam.pdf|pdf file]]


1. Define a universe that consists of Macbeth and Banquo.
The examples in the text are based on Shakespeare's play ''Macbeth''. The full text of the play is available on [http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/2264 Projekt Gutenberg].
<div class="toccolours mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="width:800px">
Check your answer
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">
''U'' = { ''Macbeth'', ''Banquo'' }
</div></div>


2. Define the interpretation of the names '''macbeth''' and '''banquo''' in an intuitively plausible way.
We will uses the movie ''Back to the Future'' in class.
<div class="toccolours mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="width:800px">
Check your answer
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">
I('''macbeth''') = ''Macbeth'', <br /> I('''banquo''') = ''Banquo''
</div></div>


3. Define the interpretation of the properties '''thane'''<sub>1</sub>, '''king'''<sub>1</sub>,
<!-- Slides for week 2: [[File:WiSe1617-Sem2-slides02-final.pdf]] -->
and '''witch'''<sub>1</sub> is such a way that Macbeth is a king,  both are thanes and neither is a witch.
<div class="toccolours mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="width:800px">
Check your answer
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">
I('''thane'''<sub>1</sub>) = {<''Macbeth''>, <''Banquo''>},<br /> I('''king'''<sub>1</sub>) = {<''Macbeth''>},<br /> I('''witch'''<sub>1</sub>) = {}
</div></div>


4. Define the interpretation of the 2-place relations '''mistrust'''<sub>2</sub> and '''kill'''<sub>2</sub> in such a way that Macbeth and Banquo mistrust each other and Macbeth kills Banquo.
== Background links ==
<div class="toccolours mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="width:800px">
Check your answer
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">
I('''mistrust'''<sub>2</sub>) = {<''Macbeth'', ''Banquo''>, <''Banquo'', ''Mactbeth''>},<br /> I('''kill'''<sub>2</sub>) = {<''Macbeth'',''Banquo''>}
</div></div>


== Task 3: Formulae ==
* Predicate logic:  
 
: https://www.lexical-resource-semantics.de/wiki/index.php/Semantics_1,_SoSe_2016_(Sailer):_Week_3
Write down logical formulae that express the meaning of the following sentences.
: https://www.lexical-resource-semantics.de/wiki/index.php/Semantics_1,_SoSe_2016_(Sailer):_Weeks_6_and_7
 
* Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar (HPSG): https://www.lexical-resource-semantics.de/wiki/index.php/Semantics_1,_SoSe_2016_(Sailer)#Additional_material_for_week_9
1. Banquo is a thane.
* Lexical Resource Semantics (LRS): https://www.lexical-resource-semantics.de/wiki/index.php/Semantics_1,_SoSe_2016_(Sailer)
<div class="toccolours mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="width:800px">
Check your answer
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">
'''thane'''<sub>1</sub>('''banquo''')
</div></div>
 
2. Macbeth is king and Macbeth mistrusts Banquo.
<div class="toccolours mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="width:800px">
Check your answer
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">
'''king'''<sub>1</sub>('''macbeth''') &and; '''mistrust'''<sub>2</sub>('''macbeth''','''banquo''')
</div></div>
 
3. If Banquo is king then Macbeth does not kill Banquo.
<div class="toccolours mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="width:800px">
Check your answer
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">
'''king'''<sub>1</sub>('''banquo''') &sup; &not; '''kill'''<sub>2</sub>('''macbeth''','''banquo''')
</div></div>
 
== Task 4: Interpreting formulae ==
 
Compute the interpretation of the following formulæ step by step.
 
1. '''mistrust'''<sub>2</sub>('''macbeth''','''macbeth''')
<div class="toccolours mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="width:800px">
Check your answer
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">
[[<nowiki />'''mistrust'''<sub>2</sub>('''macbeth''','''macbeth''')]] = ''1'' <br> iff < [[<nowiki />'''macbeth''']], [[<nowiki />'''macbeth''']] > is in [[<nowiki />'''mistrust'''<sub>2</sub>]] <br> iff < I('''macbeth'''), I('''macbeth''') > in I('''mistrust'''<sub>2</sub>) <br> iff < ''Macbeth'', ''Macbeth'' > in { <''x'',''y''> | ''x'' mistrusts ''y'' } = { <''Macbeth'', ''Banquo''>, <''Banquo'', ''Macbeth''> }
 
Since this is not the case, [[<nowiki />'''mistrust'''<sub>2</sub>('''macbeth''','''macbeth''')]] = ''0''.
</div></div>
 
 
2. &not;'''king'''('''banquo''')
<div class="toccolours mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="width:800px">
Check your answer
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">
[[<nowiki />&not; '''king'''<sub>1</sub>('''banquo''')]] = ''1'' <br>iff [[<nowiki />'''king'''('''banquo''')]] = ''0'' <br>iff < [[<nowiki />'''banquo''']]> is not in [[<nowiki />'''king'''<sub>1</sub>]]<br> iff < I('''banquo'''> is not in I('''king'''<sub>1</sub>) <br>iff < ''Banquo'' > is not in { <''x''> | ''x'' is king } = { <''Macbeth''>}
 
Since this is the case, [[<nowiki />&not; '''king'''<sub>1</sub>('''banquo''')]] = ''1''
</div></div>
 
 
3. '''witch'''<sub>1</sub>('''banquo''') &sup; '''king'''<sub>1</sub>('''macbeth''')
<div class="toccolours mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="width:800px">
Check your answer
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">
[[<nowiki />'''witch'''<sub>1</sub>('''banquo''') &sup; '''king'''<sub>1</sub>('''macbeth'''))]] = ''1''<br>iff [[<nowiki />'''witch'''<sub>1</sub>('''banquo''')]] = ''0'' or [[<nowiki />'''king'''<sub>1</sub>('''macbeth''') = ''1'' <br> iff < [[<nowiki />'''banquo''']] > is not in [[<nowiki />'''witch'''<sub>1</sub>]] or < [[<nowiki />'''macbeth''']] > is in [[<nowiki />'''king'''<sub>1</sub>]] <br> iff  < I('''banquo''') > is not in I('''witch'''<sub>1</sub>) or < I('''macbeth''') > is in I('''king'''<sub>1</sub>) <br> iff < ''Banquo'' > is not in { <''x''> | ''x'' is a witch} = { } or < ''Macbeth'' > is in { <''x''> | ''x'' is king} = { <''Macbeth''>}.
 
Since both are the case,  [[<nowiki />'''witch'''<sub>1</sub>('''banquo''') &sup; '''king'''<sub>1</sub>('''macbeth'''))]] = ''1''.
</div></div>
 
=== Task 5: Variables ===
 
Provide a g-function that maps the variables ''x'', ''y'', and ''z'' to individuals from the universe and compute
the interpretation of the following formula with respect to the model and your g.
 
(i) '''kill'''<sub>2</sub>(''z'',''x'')
 
<div class="toccolours mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="width:800px">
Check your answer
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">
Example solution (other values for g are equally possible).
 
g(''x'') = ''Macbeth'',<br>g(''y'') = ''Banquo'',<br>g(''z'') = ''Banquo''.
 
With this variable assignment we can compute the truth value of the formula:
 
[[<nowiki />'''kill'''<sub>2</sub>(''z'',''x'')]]<sup>g</sup> = ''1''<br>iff < [[<nowiki />''z'']]<sup>g</sup>, [[<nowiki />''x'']]<sup>g</sup> > is in [[<nowiki />'''kill'''<sub>2</sub>]]<sup>g</sup><br>iff < g(''z''), g(''x'') > is in I('''kill'''<sub>2</sub>)<br>iff < ''Banquo'', ''Macbeth'' > is in { <''x'',''y''> | ''x'' killed ''y''} = { <''Macbeth'', ''Banquo''> }.
 
Since this is not the case,  [[<nowiki />'''kill'''<sub>2</sub>(''z'',''x'')]]<sup>g</sup> = ''0''.
</div></div>
 
=== Task 6: Quantifiers ===
 
Provide logical formulae that expresse the meaning of the following sentences. Are the formulae true in
your model (not in the entire play)? Give a short reason (you don’t need to compute the truth value).
 
1. Banquo was killed by a king.
<div class="toccolours mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="width:800px">
Check your answer
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">
&exist;''x'' ('''king'''(''x'') : '''kill'''(''x'', '''banquo'''))
 
The formula is true in my model, because there is only one king, Macbeth, and Macbeth killed Banquo.<br>(Note: The English sentence is in passive, but this has no effect on the logical form.)
</div></div>
 
2. Macbeth mistrusts every witch.
<div class="toccolours mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="width:800px">
Check your answer
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">
&forall;''x'' ('''witch'''(''x'') : '''mistrust'''('''macbeth''', ''x''))
 
The formula is true in my model, because there are no witches in my model. Therefore, the formula with the universal quantifier is trivially true.
</div></div>
 
 
== Task 7: Analysis: Lexicon ==
 
Provide the lexical entries for the words in the sentence ''Banquo mistrusted Macbeth''. Use the features PHON, HEAD, SUBJ, SPR, COMPS, DR, PARTS, and EX-CONT.
 
<div class="toccolours mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="width:800px">
Check your answer
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">
{|
|
|''Banquo''
|''mistrusted''
|''Macbeth''
|-
|PHON
|&nbsp;< ''Banquo'' >
|&nbsp;< ''mistrusted'' >
|< ''Macbeth'' >
|-
|HEAD
|&nbsp;''noun''
|&nbsp;''verb''
|''noun''
|-
|SUBJ
|&nbsp;< >
|&nbsp;< NP[DR [a]] >
|< >
|-
|SPR
|&nbsp;< >
|&nbsp;< >
|< >
|-
|COMPS
|&nbsp;< >
|&nbsp;< NP[DR [b]] >
|< >
|-
|DR
|&nbsp; [a]'''banquo'''
|&nbsp; [c]'''mistrust'''<sub>2</sub>
|&nbsp; [b]'''macbeth'''
|-
|EX-C
|&nbsp; ??
|&nbsp; [d]
|&nbsp; ??
|-
|PARTS
|&nbsp;<'''banquo''' >&nbsp;
|&nbsp;<'''mistrust'''<sub>2</sub>, '''mistrust'''<sub>2</sub>([a],[b]) >&nbsp;&nbsp;
|<'''macbeth''' >
|-
|}
 
</div></div>
 
== Task 8: Analysis: Syntactic structure and semantic combinatorics ==
 
Using the lexical entries from [[Semantics_1,_SoSe_2016_(Sailer):_Mock_Exam#Task_7:_Analysis:_Lexicon|'''Task 7''']], provide the syntactic structure of the sentence ''Banquo mistrusted Macbeth''. Indicate all the values for all features at each node in the tree.
 
<div class="toccolours mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="width:800px">
Check your answer
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">
Tree structure:
 
[[File:Tree-BanquoMistrustedMacbeth.jpg]]
 
 
{|
|
|''Banquo''
|''mistrusted''
|''Macbeth''
|-
|
| [1]
|
| [2]
|-
|PHON
|&nbsp;< ''Banquo'' >
|&nbsp;< ''mistrusted'' >
|< ''Macbeth'' >
|-
|HEAD
|&nbsp;''noun''
|&nbsp;''verb''
|''noun''
|-
|SUBJ
|&nbsp;< >
|&nbsp;< [1] NP[DR [a]] >
|< >
|-
|SPR
|&nbsp;< >
|&nbsp;< >
|< >
|-
|COMPS
|&nbsp;< >
|&nbsp;< [2] NP[DR [b]] >
|< >
|-
|DR
|&nbsp; [a]'''banquo'''
|&nbsp; [c]'''mistrust'''<sub>2</sub>
|&nbsp; [b]'''macbeth'''
|-
|EX-C
|&nbsp; ??
|&nbsp; [d]
|&nbsp; ??
|-
|PARTS
|&nbsp;<'''banquo''' >&nbsp;
|&nbsp;<'''mistrust'''<sub>2</sub>, '''mistrust'''<sub>2</sub>([a],[b]) >&nbsp;&nbsp;
|<'''macbeth''' >
|-
|}
 
 
{|
|
|VP: ''mistrusted M.''
|S: ''B. mistrusted M.''
|-
|PHON
|&nbsp;< ''mistrusted, Macbeth''>
|&nbsp;< ''Banquo, mistrusted, Macbeth''>
|-
|HEAD
|&nbsp;''verb''
|&nbsp;''verb''
|-
|SUBJ
|&nbsp;< [1] NP>
|&nbsp;< >
|-
|SPR
|&nbsp;< >
|&nbsp;< >
|-
|COMPS
|&nbsp;< >
|&nbsp;< >
|-
|DR
|&nbsp; [c]
|&nbsp; [c]
|-
|EX-C
|&nbsp; [d]
|&nbsp; [d]
|-
|PARTS
|&nbsp;<'''mistrust'''<sub>2</sub>, '''mistrust'''<sub>2</sub>([a],[b]) ,&nbsp;&nbsp;
|&nbsp;<'''mistrust'''<sub>2</sub>, '''mistrust'''<sub>2</sub>([a],[b]),
|-
|
|&nbsp; '''macbeth''' >
|&nbsp; '''macbeth''', '''banquo''' >
|}
 
</div></div>
 
== Task 9: General mechanisms of LRS ==
 
1. Enumerate all possible logical forms that would be compatible with the parts list of the sentence
from Task 8.
 
<div class="toccolours mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="width:800px">
Check your answer
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">
Logical form 1: '''mistrust'''<sub>2</sub>('''banquo''','''macbeth''')
Logical form 2: '''mistrust'''<sub>2</sub>('''macbeth''','''banquo''')
</div></div>
 
 
2. Use the parts values to show that the following expressions are excluded as possible logical forms
of the sentence?
 
(a) '''mistrust'''<sub>2</sub>('''macbeth''','''banquo''','''banquo''')
 
(b) '''mistrust'''<sub>2</sub>('''banquo''','''banquo''')
 
(c) '''macbeth'''('''mistrust'''<sub>2</sub>,'''banquo''')
 
<div class="toccolours mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="width:800px">
Check your answer
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">
(a) The expression cannot be a possible logical form, because it is not a well-formed formula: the predicate '''mistrust'''  can only combine with two arguments, not with three. (This is indicated with the element '''mistrust'''<sub>2</sub>(...,...).
 
(b) The formula does not use all expressions from the PARTS list: the expression '''macbeth''' is missing.
 
(c) '''macbeth''' denotes an individual , '''mistrust'''<sub>2</sub> is a precate. Therefore, '''macbeth''' cannot function as predicate, not can '''mistrust'''<sub>2</sub> function as its argument.
 
</div></div>
 
 
3. How do we manage to prevent some of the hypothetically possible logical forms that you listed in
subtask 1 from occurring?
 
<div class="toccolours mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="width:800px">
Check your answer
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">
The subject, ''Banquo'', should be linked to the first semantic argument slot of the predicate '''mistrust'''<sub>2</sub> - analogously for the complement and the second argument slot of the predicate. This is specified in the lexical entry of the verb, where the DR values of the subject ([a]) and the complement ([b]) are identified with the first and the second argument slots of '''mistrust'''<sub>2</sub> respectively.
 
</div></div>
 
== Task 10: Local semantic phenomena ==
 
What kind of semantic restriction is violated in the deviating forms of the following sentences? Give a
reason for your decision.
 
1. [Lady Macbeth’s madness]/#[The crazy queen] started after Duncan’s death.
<div class="toccolours mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="width:800px">
Check your answer
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">
A sortal restriction is violated:
# The verb ''start'' takes an eventuality as its semantic argument. The NP ''Lady Macbeth's madness'' is such an eventuality, but ''the crazy queen'' is not (it refers to an indivdiual).
# The deviant sentence is an instance of a violated sortal restriction because the resulting sentence cannot be interpreted.
</div></div>
 
2. Macbeth killed [the king]/?[his honourableness].
<div class="toccolours mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="width:800px">
Check your answer
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">
A weaker, further semantic selection restriction is violated.
# Usually the verb ''kill'' takes a living being as its syntactic complement and its patient argument. In the second version, the complement NP refers to an abstract entity.
# Even though the usual semantic selection restriction of the verb ''kill'' is violated in the seconde sentence, this violation does not lead to uninterpretability. Rather the sentence is interpreted in a figurative way, i.e., killing one's honorability is seen as causing one's own good reputation to disappear.
</div></div>
 
== Task 11: Local semantics phenomena ==
 
Consider the following data on the verb build. Provide a lexical entry that includes all features from
figure 1 and encodes explicitly the linking information, the sortal restriction, and (some of) the further
semantic selection restrictions. Describe how your lexical entry will be allow you to account for the data.
 
(2) a. Macbeth built a wall.
: b. The Scots built a wall.
: c. #Macbeth built a war.
: d. ??Macbeth built Lady Macbeth.
: e. ??The wall built a war.
: f. #The war built a wall.
 
<div class="toccolours mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="width:800px">
Check your answer
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">
Lexical entry:
 
: PHON < build >
: HEAD verb
: SUBJ < NP [DR [a]] >
: SPR < >
: COMPS < NR [DR [b]] >
: DR [c] '''build'''<sub>2-obj,obj</sub>
: EX-C ??
: PARTS < [c], [c]([a],[b]) >
: PRESUP < '''Gen''' x '''Gen'''y ('''build'''<sub>2-obj,obj</sub>(x,y) : (have-will<sub>1</sub>(x) &and; '''non-living-entity'''<sub>1</sub>(y)))
 
Description:
* Linking: The DR-values of the subject and the direct object of the verb ''build'', [a] and [b], are linked to the first respectively the second argument slot of the predicate '''build'''<sub>2</sub>.
* Sortal restriction: The arguments of '''build'''<sub>2-obj,obj</sub> cannot be events but must be concrete objects, i.e., they must be of sort ''obj''. This is shown by the uninterpretability of (2c) and (2f). It is formally modelled via the sortal restrictions encoded in the name of the predicate.
* Further semantic selection restriction: The "builder" is typically an entity with a will of its own. The "built" is typically not a living entity. This is expressed by a prototypicality presupposition in the lexical entry of the verb.
 
</div></div>
 
<!--
== Task 11: Eventualities ==
 
Classify the VPs in the following sentences according to boundedness, duratitivity, and change. What is the type of eventuality in each of the sentences?
 
: (a) Macbeth received the crown of Scotland.<br>
: (b) Duncan was a good king.<br>
: (c) The three witches made a prophecy.<br>
: (d) Duncan was riding along the battle fields.<br>
 
<div class="toccolours mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="width:800px">
Check your answer
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">
(a) bounded +, durativity -, change +: achievement
 
(b) bounded -, durativity +, change -: state
 
(c) bounded +, durativity +, change +: accomplishment
 
(d) bounded -, durativity +, change +: process
</div></div>
 
 
<hr />
Back to the material for [[Semantics_1,_WiSe_2014/15_(Sailer)|Semantics 1, WiSe 2014/15]].
 
= Material for week 3 =
 
= Material for week 4 =
 
= Material for week 5 =
 
= Material for week 6 =
 
= Material for week 7 =
 
= Material for week 8 =
 
= Material for week 9 =
 
= Material for week 10 =
 
= Material for week 11 =
 
= Material for week 12 =
 
= Material for week 13 =


= Material for week 14 =
Additional [[Semantics_2,_WiSe_2016/17_Material_Week_2|material for week 2]].


= Material for week 15 =
= Material for week 1 =


Mock exam (to be uploaded)
Literary scenario: ''Back to the Future''
* Wikipedia entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Back_to_the_Future

Latest revision as of 20:43, 8 November 2016

NEW ROOM: IG 3.214 (Sailer's office)

Preparational material

Course description

In Semantics 1, we showed how to arrive at an interpretation for simple English sentences. In this follow-up course the participants will extend their analytic skills to more advanced phenomena, such as:

  • scope ambiguity ("Everything that glitters isn't gold.")
  • the semantics of embedded clauses
  • semantic concord phenomena (as in substandard "nobody ain't doin' nothing")
  • the semantics of modal auxiliaries ("must", "can", ...)
  • idioms and collocations

Entrance test

In order to participate in the course you need to send your solutions to the following test to sailer@em.uni-frankfurt.de no later than October 16, 2016. (note: extended deadline from a previous announcement!)

WiSe1617-Semantics2-EntranceTest.pdf

You can find some help on the page with the mock exam for the Semantics 1 class of the summer term 2015: mock exam SoSe 2015

Unfortunately notifications cannot be sent out by October 12 but only after the first meeting of the course. So, please come to the course meeting in any case

If you have successfully passed the written exam of a Semantics 1 course by Frank Richter or Manfred Sailer in one of the last three terms, you need not do the entrance test.

Material for week 5

Homework

  • Read Chapter 5, section 5.4 of the textbook.
  • Provide the lexical entries of an intransitive and a ditransitive verb (including the local semantics!)

Material for week 4

Slides

Slides: File:WS1617-Interface-slides04-final.pdf

Homework for week 4

  • Read Chapter 5, section 5.1-5.3 of the textbook. You are welcome to read Section 5.4 as well. (Section 5.4. is long but not very densely written)
  • Provide the PARTS lists for the words and phrases for our example Marty likes Jennifer from week 2. What are the possible EXCONT-values for the sentence?


Material for week 3

Homework for week 3

  • Read Chapter 3 of the textbook, p.79-104
  • Provide the logical form of the sentence: Marty travelled.
  • Compute the truth conditions of the sentence in your model.
  • Provide the lexical entries and the syntactic analysis of the sentence (indicate the features PHON, HEAD, and SUBCAT)

Slides of week 3

Slides: File:Sem2-slides03-final.pdf

Material for week 2

Exercise sheet: File:SoSe16-mockexam.pdf

The examples in the text are based on Shakespeare's play Macbeth. The full text of the play is available on Projekt Gutenberg.

We will uses the movie Back to the Future in class.


Background links

  • Predicate logic:
https://www.lexical-resource-semantics.de/wiki/index.php/Semantics_1,_SoSe_2016_(Sailer):_Week_3
https://www.lexical-resource-semantics.de/wiki/index.php/Semantics_1,_SoSe_2016_(Sailer):_Weeks_6_and_7

Additional material for week 2.

Material for week 1

Literary scenario: Back to the Future

Retrieved from "http:///wiki/index.php?title=Semantics_2,_WiSe_2016/17&oldid=7011"