Ling115: Semantik I Tatjana Scheffler / based on handout by Maribel Romero June 24/25, 2014

1

Computing ambiguities from syntactic attachment

n Assume the following set of syntactic rules:

IP stands for "Inflectional Phrase", which amounts to our old S (sentence).

(1) IP → NP I' I' → I VP

NP → Npr NP → Det N' N' → Adj N' N' → N' PP N' → N' AdjP AdjP → Adjtrans PP N' → N' Conj' Conj' → Conj N' N' → N VP → Adv VP VP → VP PP VP → VP Conj' Conj' → Conj VP VP → Neg VP VP → V' V' → Vtrans NP V' → Vintr PP → P NP

Npr → Andreas | Konstanz | ... N → men | women | …

Det → a | the | some | my | every | … Adj → curious | nice | green | … Adjtrans → fond | interested | … P → on | from | with | of | … Vintr → bikes | drives | walks | listening | talking | came Conj → and | or

Neg → not I → [ ] | PROGRESSIVE (is) | ...

n Assume the usual denotations for the relevant lexical entries: (2) [[bikes]]w = [λxe. BIKES(x)]

[[drives]]w = [λxe. DRIVE(x) ] [[walks]]w = [λxe. WALK(x)] [[listening]]w = [λxe. LISTEN(x)] [[talking]]w = [λxe. TALK(x)]

2

(3) [[and]]w = [ λP<e,t>. [λQ<e,t>. [λue. P(u) ∧ Q(u)]] ] [[or]]w = [ λP<e,t>. [λQ<e,t>. [λue. P(u) ∨ Q(u)]] ] [[not]]w = [ λP<e,t>. [λue. ¬(P(u))] ]

n Assume the three semantic rules that we have introduced: (4) Non-Branching Nodes:

If α has the form α , then [[α]]w = [[β]]w.

β

(5) Functional Application: If α has the form α and one daughter has the right type to be the argument of the

β γ other daugher, then [[α]]w = [[β]]w ([[γ]]w ) or [[α]]w = [[γ]]w ([[β]]w ), whatever is defined.

(6) Predicate Modification: If α has the form α , then [[α]]w = [ λxe. [[β]]w(x ) ∧ [[γ]]w(x ) ] β<e,t> γ<e,t> n Ambiguities due to the relative placement of and and or: (7) (In order to go to work,) Andreas bikes or drives and walks. QUESTION 1: First, explain in your own words the two intuitive interpretations of (7). Second, draw the two syntactic trees that the syntactic rules in (1) derive for sentence (7). Third, do the semantic computation of each tree. Which tree/computation corresponds to which intuitive reading? n Ambiguities due to the relative placement not and and/or: (8) Joan is not listening and talking. QUESTION 2: Do the same for (8) as in question 1. n Ambiguities due to the relative placement of connectives and modifiers.

Consider sentence (9). One of the syntactic trees that our syntactic rules generate for this sentence is given below, followed by the semantic computation up to the highest N' (to be completed in class).

3

(9) Some [curious students or professors from Konstanz]N' came. IP NP I' Det N' I VP Some Adj<e,t> N'<e,t> V' curious N' Conj' Vintr N Conj N' came students or N'<e,t> PP<e,t> N P NP professors from Npr Konstanz [[Konstanz]]w = k [[from]]w = [λxe.[λye.FROM(y,x)]] [[from Konstanz]]w = [λye.FROM(y,k)] [[professors]]w = [λve.PROF(v)] [[professors from Konstanz]]w = [ λxe. [[professors]]w(x ) ∧ [[from Konstanz]]w(x ) ] = [ λxe. [λve.PROF(v)](x ) ∧ [λye.FROM(y,k)](x ) ] = [ λxe. PROF(x) ∧ FROM(x,k) ] [[or]]w = [λP<e,t>. [λQ<e,t>. [λue. P(u) ∨ Q(u)]]]

[[or professors from Konstanz]]w = [[or]]w ([[professors from Konstanz]]w )

= [λP<e,t>. [λQ<e,t>. [λue. P(u) ∨ Q(u)]]] ([λxe. PROF(x) ∧ FROM(x,k)]) = [λQ<e,t>. [λue. [λxe. PROF(x) ∧ FROM(x,k)] (u) ∨ Q(u)]] = [λQ<e,t>. [λue. (PROF(u) ∧ FROM(u,k)) ∨ Q(u)]]

[[students]]w = [λve. STUDENT(v)]

[[students or professors from Konstanz]]w = [[or professors from Konstanz]]w ([[students]]w) = [λQ<e,t>. [λue. (PROF(u) ∧ FROM(u,k)) ∨ Q(u)]] ([λve. STUDENT(v)] ) = [λue. (PROF(u) ∧ FROM(u,k)) ∨ [λve. STUDENT(v)](u)] = [λue. (PROF(u) ∧ FROM(u,k)) ∨ STUDENT(u)]

[[curious]]w = [λve. CURIOUS(v)] [[curious students or professors from Konstanz]]w = [ λxe. [[curious]]w(x ) ∧ [[students of professors from Konstanz]]w(x ) ] = [ λxe. [λve. CURIOUS(v)](x ) ∧ [λue. (PROF(u) ∧ FROM(u,k)) ∨ STUDENT(u)](x )] = [ λxe. CURIOUS(x) ∧ ((PROF(x) ∧ FROM(x,k)) ∨ STUDENT(x))]

4

QUESTION 3: Recall that our syntactic rules generate four other trees for this sentence. Focus on the tree where curious modifies only students whereas from Konstanz is attached higher than disjunction. Do the semantic computation of the highest N' of this tree, spelling out the lexical denotations and using the new Predicate Modification Rule when appropriate. n Pure syntactic ambiguities. Recall the following sentence from homework exercise 7: (9) Chester is a [gray cat from Philadelphia fond of tuna_fish]N'. QUESTION 4: Our syntactic rules generate at least three different trees for this sentence. Do the semantic computations up to the highest N’-node for at least two of these trees. Do these denotations differ? Why do the syntactic ambiguities in this case not lead to different semantic truth conditions for the trees?