User:MMuth: Difference between revisions

From Lexical Resource Semantics
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page with "Term paper: L3, FW 2.1, WiSe 20/21")
 
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
Term paper: L3, FW 2.1, WiSe 20/21
=Term paper: L3, FW 2.1, WiSe 20/21=
 
== Examples ==
 
 
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="()"}
- &exist;''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).
+ &exist;''x'' (('''montague<sub>1</sub>'''(''x'') &and; '''at-party<sub>1</sub>'''(''x'')) : '''fall-in-love-with<sub>2</sub>'''(''x'','''juliet'''))
- &exist;''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.
- &exist;''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>&exist; 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>

Revision as of 16:14, 15 March 2021

Term paper: L3, FW 2.1, WiSe 20/21

Examples

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.

Check your solutions here:

(a) some

(b) every, some

(c) many


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

Some Montague who was at the party fell in love with Juliet.

x (montague1(x) : (at-party1(x) ∧ fall-in-love-with2(x,juliet)))
x ((montague1(x) ∧ at-party1(x)) : fall-in-love-with2(x,juliet))
x (montague1(x) : (at-party1(x) ∧ fall-in-love-with2(x,juliet))
x ((montague1(x) ∧ fall-in-love-with2(x,juliet)) : at-party1(x))


Task 3 The sentence: Some Tybalt loved some Montague. is translated into the formula
∃ y (montague1(y) : love2(tybalt,y).

Mark all the cells in the table that stand for a true statement.

montague1(y) zwisch love2(tybalt,y)zwisch
Romeo
Mercutio
Juliet
Tybalt
Laurence
Paris


Given this table, is the overall formula true or false? (Give a reason for your answer.)

Check your solutions here:

The formula is false, because there is no individual in our model for which both the restrictor and the scope are true.