From bd1f6b5eefe15c8f5fa73da2d1fc4b36705bfe0e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: JJ Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2024 15:20:09 -0700 Subject: meow --- linguistics/semantics.md | 89 ------------------------------------------------ 1 file changed, 89 deletions(-) delete mode 100644 linguistics/semantics.md (limited to 'linguistics/semantics.md') diff --git a/linguistics/semantics.md b/linguistics/semantics.md deleted file mode 100644 index a6cb615..0000000 --- a/linguistics/semantics.md +++ /dev/null @@ -1,89 +0,0 @@ ---- -layout: linguistics -title: linguistics/semantics ---- - -# notes on semantics - -Semantics is the study of **meaning**. - -How do we know what sentences are true and which are false?
-What does it *mean* for a sentence to be true?
-What conditions must hold for a sentence to be true? - -Formal semantics attempts to answer those questions by providing a *framework* for determining what *conditions* must hold for a sentence to be true. - -This framework is [first-order/predicate logic](../mathematics/logic) and the [simply-typed lambda calculus](../plt/lambda-calculus). On top of this, we often build set theory, relying on *characteristic functions* of the lambda calculus as denotations of *set membership*. - - -## Basic Principles - -### Compositionality - -The *Principle of Compositionality* states that the meaning of a *constituent* is determined entirely by its *components*. This is *the* fundamental underlying principle behind formal logic and subsequently semantics. It holds for not just sentence composition (syntax), but also *word formation* (morphology), and what's of interest to us here - meaning (semantics). - -### Substitution - -The *Principle of Substitution* states that substituting one part of an expression with something else of the same meaning *preserves* the meaning of the expression as a whole. This might be thought of as a given, but semantics has its roots in philosophy, and philosophers care very much about enumerating their givens. - -### Predicate Logic & The Lambda Calculus - -Formal semantics begets a formal system for such semantics, and *first-order logic* and *the lambda calculus* are a natural fit. Semantics is the study of meaning - and what is logic but a system for expressing meaning? As discussed above, language functions by composition - and what are functions but their property of composition? - -[*An Invitation to Formal Semantics*](https://eecoppock.info/bootcamp/semantics-boot-camp.pdf) covers basic logic and the lambda calculus well in its first six chapters. Otherwise, for a worse introduction, see [logic](../mathematics/logic), and [the lambda calculus](../plt/lambda-calculus). - -## Denotational Semantics - -With basic logic and the lambda calculus under our belt, we may simply get straight to assigning *meaning* to language. We consider two *basic types* to start: the type of entities, $e$, and the type of truth values, $t$. Our function types we denote by ordered pairs: that is, a function from $e$ to $t$ is of type $⟨e,t⟩$. This is perhaps clunkier notation than the type-theoretic $e→t$, but it is what it is. (And does avoid issues of precedence.) - -### Entities and Functions - -> *I am Alice.*
-> *Alice is bad.*
-> *The blue pigeon flew away.* - -- Noun: $⟨e,t⟩ ↝ λx.Noun(x)$ -- Verb (intransitive): $⟨e,t⟩ ↝ λx.Verb(x)$ -- Verb (transitive): $⟨e,⟨e,t⟩⟩ ↝ λy.λx.Verb(x, y)$ -- Verb (meaningless): $⟨⟨e,t⟩,⟨e,t⟩⟩ ↝ λP.λx.P(x)$ -- Adj: $⟨⟨e,t⟩,⟨e,t⟩⟩ ↝ λNoun.λx.[Adj(x) ∧ Noun(x)]$ - -- or (clausal): $⟨t,⟨t,t⟩⟩ ↝ λq.λp.[p ∨ q]$ -- and (clausal): $⟨t,⟨t,t⟩⟩ ↝ λq.λp.[p ∧ q]$ -- or (verbal): $⟨⟨e,t⟩,⟨⟨e,t⟩,⟨e,t⟩⟩⟩ ↝ λQ.λP.λx.[P(x) ∨ Q(x)]$ -- and (verbal): $⟨⟨e,t⟩,⟨⟨e,t⟩,⟨e,t⟩⟩⟩ ↝ λQ.λP.λx.[P(x) ∧ Q(x)]$ -- or (quantifiers): $⟨⟨e,⟨e,t⟩⟩,⟨⟨e,⟨e,t⟩⟩,⟨e,⟨e,t⟩⟩⟩⟩ ↝ λQ.λP.λy.λx.[P(x,y) ∨ Q(x,y)]$ -- and (quantifiers): $⟨⟨e,⟨e,t⟩⟩,⟨⟨e,⟨e,t⟩⟩,⟨e,⟨e,t⟩⟩⟩⟩ ↝ λQ.λP.λy.λx.[P(x,y) ∧ Q(x,y)]$ - -- not: $⟨⟨e,t⟩,⟨e,t⟩⟩ ↝ λP.λx.¬P(x)$ - -### Quantification - -- every: $⟨⟨e,t⟩,⟨⟨e,t⟩,t⟩⟩ ↝ λQ.λP.∀x.[P(x) → Q(x)]$ - - everything: $⟨⟨e,t⟩,t⟩ ↝ λP.∀x.P(x)$ -- some: $⟨⟨e,t⟩,⟨⟨e,t⟩,t⟩⟩ ↝ λQ.λP.∃x.[P(x) ∧ Q(x)]$ - - something: $⟨⟨e,t⟩,t⟩ ↝ λP.∃x.P(x)$ -- no: $⟨⟨e,t⟩,⟨⟨e,t⟩,t⟩⟩ ↝ λQ.λP.∀x.[P(x) → ¬Q(x)] (or λQ.λP.¬∃x.[P(x) ∧ Q(x)])$ - - nothing: $⟨⟨e,t⟩,t⟩ ↝ λP.¬∃x.P(x)$ (or $λP.∀x.¬P(x)$) - -### Reference - -### Numbers and Plurality - -### Event Semantics - -### Tense and Aspect - -## Beyond Truth - -### Necessity and Possibility - -### Command, Request, Obligation - -> *Alice, run!*
-> *Alice, please run.*
-> *Alice should run.* - -### Questions -## Resources -- ✨ [Invitation to Formal Semantics](https://eecoppock.info/bootcamp/semantics-boot-camp.pdf) -- cgit v1.2.3-70-g09d2