ࡱ > @ bjbjqq x O 6 6 6 8 6 7 d l \8 ? : N? : ? ? @ C pD p ` ` ` ` 8 I` f k $ m R p n
l E PI @ @ PI PI
l ? ? 4 Rl T T T PI x ? ? A[ m T PI ` T T %Y Y ? P8 9 6 M Y [ $ hl 0 l Y ~p VQ ~p ( Y ~p Y @ D E T F NG D D D
l
l D T Lecture 7. Kamp-Heim II. Heims theory in Chapter II and
Kamps Discourse Representation Theory
TOC \o "1-2" \h \z \u HYPERLINK \l "_Toc194165942" 1. The semantic problems of indefinites, quantification, discourse anaphora, donkey sentences. PAGEREF _Toc194165942 \h 1
HYPERLINK \l "_Toc194165943" 2. The main ideas of Heims solution. (Chapter II) PAGEREF _Toc194165943 \h 3
HYPERLINK \l "_Toc194165944" 2.1. Indefinite NPs: What is their semantics? PAGEREF _Toc194165944 \h 3
HYPERLINK \l "_Toc194165945" 2.2 Adverbs of quantification, and quantificational determiners, as unselective binders. PAGEREF _Toc194165945 \h 4
HYPERLINK \l "_Toc194165946" 2.3. Existential closure. PAGEREF _Toc194165946 \h 5
HYPERLINK \l "_Toc194165947" 2.4. Other important aspects of Heims system. PAGEREF _Toc194165947 \h 6
HYPERLINK \l "_Toc194165948" 3. Kamps Discourse Representation Theory see APPENDIX PAGEREF _Toc194165948 \h 6
HYPERLINK \l "_Toc194165949" Homework #3: Heim's theory of indefinites, definites, quantifiers, and anaphora. Due April 8. PAGEREF _Toc194165949 \h 6
HYPERLINK \l "_Toc194165950" References PAGEREF _Toc194165950 \h 7
Readings: Full references and links are in References at the end. These are all on the CD.
(1) ADDIN EN.CITE Heim19828016801632Heim, IreneThe Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases1982AmherstUniversity of MassachusettsPh.D. dissertation; published 1989, New York: Garland.http://newstar.rinet.ru/~goga/biblio/heim (djvu) or http://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/Tk0ZmYyY/ (very large PDF file)(Heim 1982) Heim dissertation, Chapter 2.
(2) ADDIN EN.CITE Kamp1981278627865Kamp, HansGroenendijk, J.A.G.Janssen, T.M.V.Stokhof, M.B.J.A theory of truth and semantic representationFormal Methods in the Study of Language; Mathematical Centre Tracts 135277-322DRT1981AmsterdamMathematical Centrehttp://newstar.rinet.ru/~goga/biblio/essential-readings/08-Kamp-A.Theory.of.Truth.and.Semantic.Representation.djvu(Kamp 1981) HYPERLINK "http://newstar.rinet.ru/%7Egoga/biblio/essential-readings/08-Kamp-A.Theory.of.Truth.and.Semantic.Representation.djvu" A theory of truth and semantic representation.
(3) ADDIN EN.CITE Karttunen1976282828285Karttunen, LauriMcCawley, J.Discourse referentsSyntax and Semantics 7: Notes from the Linguistic Underground363-385In Semantics: Critical Concepts in Linguistics. Javeier Gutirrez-Rexach (ed.), Vol. III, pages 20-39. Routledge, 2003. Also in Syntax and Semantics 7: Notes from the Linguistic Underground, 363-85, J. D. McCawley (ed.), Academic Press, New York 1976. Translations: Textreferenten. In Semantik und Generative Grammatik, pages 175-197, F. Kiefer (ed.), Athenaeum, Frankfurt 1972; Referenti testuali. In La linguistica testuale, pages 121-147, M.-E. Conte (ed.), Feltrinelli, Milan 1977. Discourse, Anaphora1976New YorkAcademic PressThe first version of this paper appeared in the Proceedings of Coling'69.http://www2.parc.com/istl/members/karttune/publications/archive/discref.pdfhttp://www2.parc.com/istl/members/karttune/publications/archive/discref.pdf(Karttunen 1976) Discourse referents.
Optional readings:
(4) ADDIN EN.CITE Heim1983231123115Heim, IreneFile change semantics and the familiarity theory of definitenessMeaning, Use and the Interpretation of Language164-190Reprinted in Portner and Partee, eds., 2002, 223-248DiscourseDRT1983BerlinWalter de Gruyter. Reprinted in Portner and Partee, eds., 2002, 223-248http://newstar.rinet.ru/~goga/biblio/essential-readings/09-Heim-File.Change.Semantics.and.the.Familiarity.Theory.of.Definiteness.djvu(Heim 1983) HYPERLINK "http://newstar.rinet.ru/%7Egoga/biblio/essential-readings/09-Heim-File.Change.Semantics.and.the.Familiarity.Theory.of.Definiteness.djvu" File change semantics and the familiarity theory of definiteness.
(5) ADDIN EN.CITE Lewis1979758175815Lewis, DavidBuerle, RainerEgli, Ursvon Stechow, ArnimScorekeeping in a language gameSemantics from Different Points of View1979BerlinSpringer Verlaghttp://newstar.rinet.ru/~goga/biblio/essential-readings/06-Lewis-Scorekeeping.in.a.Language.Game.djvu (Lewis 1979) HYPERLINK "http://newstar.rinet.ru/%7Egoga/biblio/essential-readings/06-Lewis-Scorekeeping.in.a.Language.Game.djvu" Scorekeeping in a language game.
(6) ADDIN EN.CITE Stalnaker1978516651665Stalnaker, R.Cole, PeterAssertionPragmaticsSyntax and Semantics315-332Reprinted in Portner and Partee, eds., 2002, 147-161PragmaticsPresupposition1978New YorkAcademic Presshttp://newstar.rinet.ru/~goga/biblio/essential-readings/05-Stalnaker-Assertion.djvu (Stalnaker 1978) HYPERLINK "http://newstar.rinet.ru/%7Egoga/biblio/essential-readings/05-Stalnaker-Assertion.djvu" Assertion.
The semantic problems of indefinites, quantification, discourse anaphora, donkey sentences.
Discourse anaphora
( AUTONUMLGL \e ) John /the man/ a man walked in. He looked tired.
( AUTONUMLGL \e ) Every man /no man/ more than one man walked in. *He looked tired.
Natural question: But isnt they ok in ( REF Everymanwalkedin \* MERGEFORMAT 2)? Answer: Yes, but plural pronouns are a different story. See ( REF praganaph \* MERGEFORMAT 4). The argument here rests on the contrast in the use of singular pronouns. We may come back to plural pronouns later.
Bound variable anaphora
( AUTONUMLGL \e ) {John /the man/ a man/ every man /no man/ more than one man } was sure that he would win. Antecedent higher in tree than bound variable pronoun. All OK.
Pragmatic anaphora with constructed antecedent
( AUTONUMLGL \e ) {Every man /no man/ more than one man} voted for the second proposal. They (all) regretted having to make a choice.
We will probably return to pragmatic anaphora and possibly to plural pronouns this semester. In the meantime, avoid examples with plural pronouns, and focus on the contrast between ( REF Johnwalkedin 1- REF Everymanwalkedin 2) and ( REF BVanaphora 3).
Different discourse behavior of logically equivalent sentences.
(Argues against a purely pragmatic account of the differences in ( REF Johnwalkedin 1- REF Everymanwalkedin 2).)
( AUTONUMLGL \e ) a. One of the ten marbles is not in the bag. It is probably under the sofa.
b. Nine of the ten marbles are in the bag. ??It is probably under the sofa.
(Partee examples, approximately cited by Heim, p.21)
Informal generalization: ADDIN EN.CITE Karttunen1976282828285Karttunen, LauriMcCawley, J.Discourse referentsSyntax and Semantics 7: Notes from the Linguistic Underground363-385In Semantics: Critical Concepts in Linguistics. Javeier Gutirrez-Rexach (ed.), Vol. III, pages 20-39. Routledge, 2003. Also in Syntax and Semantics 7: Notes from the Linguistic Underground, 363-85, J. D. McCawley (ed.), Academic Press, New York 1976. Translations: Textreferenten. In Semantik und Generative Grammatik, pages 175-197, F. Kiefer (ed.), Athenaeum, Frankfurt 1972; Referenti testuali. In La linguistica testuale, pages 121-147, M.-E. Conte (ed.), Feltrinelli, Milan 1977. Discourse, Anaphora1976New YorkAcademic PressThe first version of this paper appeared in the Proceedings of Coling'69.http://www2.parc.com/istl/members/karttune/publications/archive/discref.pdfhttp://www2.parc.com/istl/members/karttune/publications/archive/discref.pdf(Karttunen 1976) An indefinite NP introduces a new discourse referent, which has a limited lifespan.
Examples that show limited lifespan of a discourse referent introduced by an indefinite:
( AUTONUMLGL \e ) a. John wants to catch a fish and eat it.
Maybe he would share it with me. (An example of modal subordination: ADDIN EN.CITE Roberts19897140714017Craige RobertsModal subordination and pronominal anaphora in discourseLinguistics and PhilosophyLinguistics and Philosophy683-72112modality, presupposition, modal subordination, anaphora, DRT1989(Roberts 1989) )
*Its probably under the boat now.
If ( REF Johnwantstocatchafish \* MERGEFORMAT 6a) is about a non-specific fish, i.e. a situation in which the speaker does not attribute to John an attitude toward a particular fish, then the discourse referent corresponding to a fish exists only within the hypothetical situation corresponding to Johns desire. On this interpretation of ( REF Johnwantstocatchafish \* MERGEFORMAT 6a) it is possible to follow ( REF Johnwantstocatchafish \* MERGEFORMAT 6a) by ( REF Johnwantstocatchafish \* MERGEFORMAT 6b) but not by ( REF Johnwantstocatchafish \* MERGEFORMAT 6c). Sentence ( REF Johnwantstocatchafish \* MERGEFORMAT 6c) would be fine as a continuation of ( REF Johnwantstocatchafish \* MERGEFORMAT 6a) if ( REF Johnwantstocatchafish \* MERGEFORMAT 6a) is interpreted as being about an attitude of John toward a specific fish (i.e., that theres a fish which John wants to catch and eat).
Heims and Kamps work provided formal foundations for the notion of discourse referent and laid the basis for the transition to dynamic semantics, in which the meaning of a sentence is its context change potential.
The problem of donkey sentences
( AUTONUMLGL \e ) a. Every man who owns a donkey beats it.
If a man owns a donkey, he always beats it.
How to explain that it can be anaphoric to a donkey in these sentences?
How to explain that a donkey seems in effect to act like a universally quantified NP in these sentences?
Structure of ( REF donkeypair 7a) below in (8). Coindexing indicates intended coreference, but syntactic coindexing doesnt guarantee the desired semantic identity, as we will see in (9).
( AUTONUMLGL \e ) S
wo
NP VP
3 3
DET CNP TV NP
g 3 g g
every N S beats it1
g 6
man who owns [a donkey]1
If the VP were just is happy, with no pronoun to worry about, we could do a straightforward compositional semantic interpretation of the subject NP on the classic analysis (as in Lecture 3, with the generalized quantifier interpretation of a donkey) with no problem. O n t h a t a n a l y s i s , t h e i n d e f i n i t e N P i s i n t e r p r e t e d w i t h n a r r o w s c o p e ( s c o p e c o n f i n e d t o t h e r e l a t i v e c l a u s e ) a n d a n e x i s t e n t i a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . ( R e v i e w R e l a t i v e C l a u s e r u l e f o r s t e p s a - b . )
( A U T O N U M L G L \ e ) a . T R ( [ w h o o w n s [ a d o n k e y ] 1 ] ) = z [ ( x 1 [ d o n k e y ( x 1 ) &