File change semantics and the familiarity theory definiteness

Ling 720 – Proseminar in Semantics – First Assignment.

Part I (main part): Heim’s dissertation: see below.

Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases, University of Massachusetts: Ph.D. dissertation; published 1989,

New York: Garland. Read Chapter 1. Dissertation available as a djvu file or as a very large PDF file.It's

theory of truth and semantic representation. (3) Karttunen, Lauri. 1976. Discourse referents.Optional

readings: (4) Heim, Irene. 1983. File change semantics and the familiarity theory of definiteness. (5)

Kamp, Hans. 1981. A theory of truth and semantic representation;Heim dissertation, Chapter 3. Heim (1983) File change semantics and the familiarity theory of definiteness.Choose [Handout full-

size Word file] or [Handout 2-up PDF file].

Obligatory – questions 1-5 and question 9. Optional – 6,7,8.

1. Look at my Chapter 2 handout, and at (9) on page 3, which shows what the basic problem of donkey sentences is. Then, using either what you’ve learned from the Heim and Kratzer textbook or from the syntactic and semantic basics in my own 2008 Moscow lectures 1-3 (online at the same place as lectures 6-8), fill in more of the steps in the derivation for (9), including a derivation tree with types indicated and type-checking at each step. This can be a group project by the whole class and you can give me a single copy of the answer with a note about who participated.

certain indices) is there also a semantic category assigned, and what is it? b.For which of those semantic
categories can you find a corresponding semantic
 type (or set of semantic types) in the type system of Montague’s Intensional

Logic? (You can look at what the semantic rules on pp. 159 ff. do to help figure out what the types would be.) Note: the operator every, and other such operators in Heim’s system, are not like the DETs of MG; they are
“syncategorematic” and probably must be considered not to have any type.

b)A senator who represented every state was present (at the ceremony).

7.(optional) Chapter III: “Where the existential quantifiers go, and where which selection indices belong, is always predictable from other properties of the logical form under consideration.” (p. 351, discussing the eliminability of Existential Closure and Quantifier Indexing.) Substantiate that claim if possible. 8.(optional) “We can now hypothesize that there cannot be obligatory construal rules.” (Heim, p.361) Explain what that means and how it bears on the
differences between Chapter II and Chapter III.