SoSe23: Semantics 1: Difference between revisions

From Lexical Resource Semantics
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
Line 44: Line 44:


<embedvideo service="youtube" dimensions="400">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWdltj5Mqdc</embedvideo>
<embedvideo service="youtube" dimensions="400">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWdltj5Mqdc</embedvideo>
== Variable assignment funcion ==
'''Task''' 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>


= Meeting 4 =
= Meeting 4 =

Revision as of 19:56, 23 May 2023

Course description

Semantics is the study of the (literal) meaning of words and sentences. The meaning of a sentence is usually predictable from the words in the sentence and its syntactic structure. Yet, this relationship between form and meaning is not a simple one-to-one mapping. Instead, it is rich in ambiguities, pleonastic marking and elements without any identifiable meaning contribution. We will work on an account that is founded on classical tools of semantic research but still directly addresses these empirical challenges. After the class, the participants will be able to identify - and partly analyze - interesting semantic phenomena in naturally occurring texts. They will have acquired a basic working knowledge in formal logic, which they will be able to apply in the description of meaning

Meeting 7

Course content:

Meeting 6

Meeting 5

Formulae with one connective

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) ∨ king(lady-macbeth)

Formulae with two connectives

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) ∨ ¬thane(macbeth)

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

Truth tables

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

Meeting 4

Computing the truth value of complex formulae

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) ∨ king(lady-macbeth)

Meeting 3

Computing the truth value of 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:

  • kill2(macbeth,duncan)
  • kill2(lady-macbeth,macbeth)

Meeting 2

Models

The following material is an adapted form of material created by student participants of the project e-Learning Resources for Semantics (e-LRS). Involved participants: Lisa, Marthe, Elisabeth, Isabelle.

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

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

  • Universe: U = {LittleRedRidingHood, Grandmother, Wolf}
  • Properties:
RedHood = { < x> | x wears a read hood } = { <LittleRedRidingHood> }
Female = { <x> | x is female } = { <LittleRedRidingHood>, <Grandmother> }
BigMouth = { <x> | x has a big mouth } = { <Wolf> }
LiveInForest = { < x> | x lives in the forest } = { <Grandmother>, <Wolf>}
  • Relations:
GrandChildOf = { <x,y> | x is y 's grandchild } = { <LittleRedRidingHood,Grandmother > }
AfternoonSnackOf = { <x,y> | x is y 's afternoon snack } = { <LittleRedRidingHood,Wolf > }

From this scenario, we can build a model M = < U, I >

  • Universe: U = {LittleRedRidingHood, Grandmother, Wolf}
  • Name symbols: NAME = {little-red-riding-hood}
    Note: In our model, only one individual has a name.
  • Predicate symbols: PREDICATE = {red-hood1, female1, big-mouth, live-in-forest1, grand-child-of2, afternoon-snack-of2}
  • Interpretation function I:
  • for name symbols: I(little-red-riding-hood) = LittleRedRidingHood
  • for predicate symbols:
I(red-hood1) = RedHood = { < x> | x wears a read hood } = { <LittleRedRidingHood> }
I(female) = Female = { <x> | x is female } = { <LittleRedRidingHood>, <Grandmother> }
I(big-mouth1) = BigMouth = { <x> | x has a big mouth } = { <Wolf> }
I(live-in-forest1) = LiveInForest = { < x> | x lives in the forest } = { <Grandmother>, <Wolf>}
I(grand-child-of2) = GrandChildOf = { <x,y> | x is y 's grandchild } = { <LittleRedRidingHood,Grandmother > }
I(afternoon-snack-of2) = AfternoonSnackOf = { <x,y> | x is y 's afternoon snack } = { <LittleRedRidingHood,Wolf > }

Meeting 1

Video

Challenging phenomena at the syntax-semantics interface

Literary scenario

Howl's moving castle: