Formal Semantics

1. Formal Semantics Slides by Julia Hockenmaier, Laura McGarrity, Bill McCartney, Chris Manning, and Dan Klein

2. Question Answering: IBM’s Watson Jeopardy challenge: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=seNkjYyG3gI

3. Question Answering: IBM’s Watson What components does Watson need?

4. Question Answering: IBM’s Watson What components does Watson need? • named-entity recognition • Named-entity disambiguation • Phrase chunking • Relation extraction • Word sense disambiguation

5. Formal Semantics It comes in two flavors: • Lexical Semantics: The meaning of words • Compositional semantics: How the meaning of individual units combine to form the meaning of larger units

6. What is meaning • Meaning ≠ Dictionary entries Dictionaries define words using words. Circularity!

7. Reference • Referent: the thing/idea in the world that a word refers to • Reference: the relationship between a word and its referent

8. Reference Barack president Obama The president is the commander-in-chief. = Barack Obama is the commander-in-chief.

9. Reference Barack president Obama I want to be the president. ≠ I want to be Barack Obama.

10. Reference • Tooth fairy? • Phoenix? • Winner of the 2016 presidential election?

11. What is meaning? • Meaning ≠ Dictionary entries • Meaning ≠ Reference

12. Sense • Sense: The mental representation of a word or phrase, independent of its referent.

13. Sense ≠ Mental Image • A word may have different mental images for different people. • E.g., “mother” • A word may conjure a typical mental image (a prototype), but can signify atypical examples as well.

15. Sense v. Reference • A word/phrase may have sense, but no reference: • King of the world • The camel in CIS 3203 • The greatest integer • The • A word may have reference, but no sense: • Proper names: Dan McCloy, Kristi Krein (who are they?!)

16. Sense v. Reference • A word may have the same referent, but more than one sense: • The morning star / the evening star (Venus) • A word may have one sense, but multiple referents: • Dog, bird

17. Some semantic relations between words • Hyponymy: subclass • Poodle < dog • Crimson < red • Red < color • Dance < move • Hypernymy: superclass • Synonymy: • Couch/sofa • Manatee / sea cow • Antonymy: • Dead/alive • Married/single

18. Lexical Decomposition • Word sense can be represented with semantic features:

19. Compositional Semantics

20. Compositional Semantics • The study of how meanings of small units combine to form the meaning of larger units The dog chased the cat ≠ The cat chased the dog. ie, the whole does not equal the sum of the parts. The dog chased the cat = The cat was chased by the dog ie, syntax matters to determining meaning.

21. Principle of Compositionality The meaning of a sentence is determined by the meaning of its words in conjunction with the way they are syntactically combined.

22. Exceptions to Compositionality • Anomaly: when phrases are well-formed syntactically, but not semantically • Colorless green ideas sleep furiously. (Chomsky) • That bachelor is pregnant.

23. Exceptions to Compositionality • Metaphor: the use of an expression to refer to something that it does not literally denote in order to suggest a similarity • Time is money. • The walls have ears.

24. Exceptions to Compositionality • Idioms: Phrases with fixed meanings not composed of literal meanings of the words • Kick the bucket = die (*The bucket was kicked by John.) • When pigs fly = ‘it will never happen’ (*She suspected pigs might fly tomorrow.) • Bite off more than you can chew = ‘to take on too much’ (*He chewed just as much as he bit off.)

25. Idioms in other languages

26. Logical Foundations for Compositional Semantics • We need a language for expressing the meaning of words, phrases, and sentences • Many possible choices; we will focus on • First-order predicate logic (FOPL) with types • Lambda calculus

27. Truth-conditional Semantics • Linguistic expressions • “Bob sings.” • Logical translations • sings(Bob) • but could be p_5789023(a_257890) • Denotation: • [[bob]] = some specific person (in some context) • [[sings(bob)]] = true, in situations where Bob is singing; false, otherwise • Types on translations: • bob: e(ntity) • sings(bob): t(rue or false, a boolean type)

28. Truth-conditional Semantics Some more complicated logical descriptions of language: • “All girls like a video game.” • x . y . girl(x)  [video-game(y)  likes(x,y)] • “Alice is a former teacher.” • (former(teacher))(Alice) • “Alice saw the cat before Bob did.” • x, y, z, t1, t2 . cat(x)  see(y)  see(z)  agent(y, Alice)  patient(y, x)  agent(z, Bob)  patient(z, x)  time(y, t1)  time(z, t2)  <(t1, t2)

29. FOPL Syntax Summary • A set of constants C = {c1, …} • A set of relations R = {r1, …}, where each ri is a subset of Cn for some n. • A set of variables X = {x1, …} • , , , , , , .

30. Truth-conditional semantics • Proper names: • Refer directly to some entity in the world • Bob: bob • Sentences: • Are either t or f, so they are FOL sentences • Bob sings: sings(bob) • So what about verbs and VPs? • sings must combine with bob to produce sings(bob) • The λ-calculus is a notation for functions whose arguments are not yet filled. • sings: λx.sings(x) • This is a predicate, a function that returns a truth value. In this case, it takes a single entity as an argument, so we can write its type as e  t

31. Lambda calculus • FOL + λ (new quantifier) will be our lambda calculus • Intuitively, λ is just a way of creating a function • E.g., girl() is a relation symbol; but λx. girl(x) is a function that takes one argument. • New inference rule: function application (λx. L1(x)) (L2) → L1(L2) E.g.,(λx. x2) (3) → 32 E.g., (λx. sings(x)) (Bob) → sings(Bob) • Lambda calculus lets us describe the meaning of words individually. • Function application (and a few other rules) then lets us combine those meanings to come up with the meaning of larger phrases or sentences.

32. Quiz: Lambda calculus For each lambda calculus expression below, find a simplified form: • (λx. x) (-19) • (λx. canFly(x)) (PollyParrot) • (λf. f(PollyParrot)) (λx. canFly(x))

33. Answer: Lambda calculus For each lambda calculus expression below, find a simplified form: • (λx. x) (-19)  -19 • (λx. canFly(x)) (PollyParrot)  canFly(PollyParrot) • (λf. f(PollyParrot)) (λx. canFly(x))  (λx. canFly(x)) (PollyParrot) canFly(PollyParrot)

34. Quiz: Lambda calculus 2 For each lambda calculus expression below, find a factored form, where each factor contains some portion of the original: • canFly(PollyParrot) • likes(SuzySueMae, JimmyJoeBob) • 2

35. Answer: Lambda calculus 2 For each lambda calculus expression below, find a factored form, where each factor contains some portion of the original: • canFly(PollyParrot)  λx. canFly(x), PollyParrot OR λf. f(PollyParrot), λx. canFly(x) • likes(SuzySueMae, JimmyJoeBob)  λx. likes(x, JimmyJoeBob), SuzySueMaeOR λx. likes(SuzySueMae, x), JimmyJoeBob OR λx. λy. likes(x, y), SuzySueMae, JimmyJoeBob OR EVEN λf. λx. λy. f(x, y), SuzySueMae, JimmyJoeBob, λa.λb.likes(a, b) • 2 Can’t do it. Only real option: λx. x, 2. But the first factor has nothing of the original.

36. Compositional Semantics with the λ-calculus Associate a combination rule with each grammar rule: • S : β(α) NP : αVP : β (function application) • VP : λx. α(x) ∧β(x)  VP : αand : ∅VP : β(intersection) • Example:

37. Composition: Some more examples • Transitive verbs: • likes : λx.λy.likes(y,x) • VP “likes Amy” : λy.likes(y,Amy) is just a one-place predicate • Quantifiers: • What does “everyone” mean? • Everyone : λf.x.f(x) • Some problems: • Have to change our NP/VP rule • Won’t work for “Amy likes everyone” • What about “Everyone likes someone”? • Gets tricky quickly!

38. Composition: Some more examples • Indefinites • The wrong way: • “Bob ate a waffle” : ate(bob,waffle) • “Amy ate a waffle” : ate(amy,waffle) • Better translation: • ∃x.waffle(x) ^ ate(bob, x)

39. Composition Example ∃x.waffle(x) ^ ate(bob, x) Use factoring to determine the meaning of each node in the tree.

40. Quiz: Composition ∃x.waffle(x) ^ ate(bob, x) λy.∃x.waffle(x) ^ ate(y, x) bob • By repeatedly applying factoring, what is the lambda calculus form for • ate? • waffle? • a?

41. Answer: Composition ∃x.waffle(x) ^ ate(bob, x) λy.∃x.waffle(x) ^ ate(y, x) bob λf. λy.∃x.waffle(x) ^ f(y, x) λa. λb. ate(a, b) λc.waffle(c) λg. λf. λy.∃x.g(x) ^ f(y, x) • By repeatedly applying factoring, what is the lambda calculus form for • ate? • waffle? • a? λa. λb. ate(a, b) λc.waffle(c) λg. λf. λy.∃x.g(x) ^ f(y, x)

42. Denotation • What do we do with the logical form? • It has fewer (no?) ambiguities • Can check the truth-value against a database • More usefully: can add new facts, expressed in language, to an existing relational database • Question-answering: can check whether a statement in a corpus entails a question-answer pair: “Bob sings and dances”  Q:“Who sings?” has answer A:“Bob” • Can chain together facts for story comprehension

43. Grounding • What does the translation likes : λx. λy. likes(y,x) have to do with actual liking? • Nothing! (unless the denotation model says it does) • Grounding: relating linguistic symbols to perceptual referents • Sometimes a connection to a database entry is enough • Other times, you might insist on connecting “blue” to the appropriate portion of the visual EM spectrum • Or connect “likes” to an emotional sensation • Alternative to grounding: meaning postulates • You could insist, e.g., that likes(y,x) => knows(y,x)

44. More representation issues • Tense and events • In general, you don’t get far with verbs as predicates • Better to have event variables e • “Alice danced” : danced(Alice) vs. • “Alice danced” : ∃e.dance(e)^agent(e, Alice)^(time(e)<now) • Event variables let you talk about non-trivial tense/aspect structures: “Alice had been dancing when Bob sneezed”

45. More representation issues • Propositional attitudes (modal logic) • “Bob thinks that I am a gummi bear” • thinks(bob, gummi(me))? • thinks(bob, “He is a gummi bear”)? • Usually, the solution involves intensions (^p) which are, roughly, the set of possible worlds in which predicate p is true. • thinks(bob, ^gummi(me)) • Computationally challenging • Each agent has to model every other agent’s mental state • This comes up all the time in language – • E.g., if you want to talk about what your bill claims that you bought, vs. what you think you bought, vs. what you actually bought.

46. More representation issues • Multiple quantifiers: “In this country, a woman gives birth every 15 minutes. Our job is to find her, and stop her.” -- Groucho Marx • Deciding between readings • “Bob bought a pumpkin every Halloween.” • “Bob put a warning in every window.”

47. More representation issues • Other tricky stuff • Adverbs • Non-intersective adjectives • Generalized quantifiers • Generics • “Cats like naps.” • “The players scored a goal.” • Pronouns and anaphora • “If you have a dime, put it in the meter.” • … etc., etc.

48. Mapping Sentences to Logical Forms

49. CCG Parsing • Combinatory Categorial Grammar • Lexicalized PCFG • Categories encode argument sequences • A/B means a category that can combine with a B to the right to form an A • A \ B means a category that can combine with a B to the left to form an A • A syntactic parallel to the lambda calculus

50. Learning to map sentences to logical form • Zettlemoyer and Collins (IJCAI 05, EMNLP 07)