\documentclass[12pt]{article}

%=====================================================================
%============================== packages =============================

\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}
\usepackage[T1, OT2,OT1]{fontenc}
\usepackage{textcomp}
\usepackage[scale={0.8,0.9}, centering, includeheadfoot]{geometry}
\usepackage[charter]{mathdesign}
\usepackage{amsmath}
\usepackage{color}
\definecolor{black}{rgb}{0,0,0}
\usepackage[colorlinks, linkcolor=black, urlcolor=black, citecolor=black]{hyperref}
\usepackage{examples-slim}
\usepackage{fancyhdr}

%=====================================================================
%============================= teaching ==============================

\newcommand{\handoutfrontmatter}[2]{
\begin{center}
{\Large #1}\medskip\\
Chris Potts, Ling 130a/230a: Introduction to semantics and pragmatics, Winter 2021\medskip\\
#2
\end{center}}

\newcommand{\headingdesign}[1]{\pagestyle{fancy}%
\fancyhead{} %
\lhead{Ling 130a/230a, Stanford (Potts)} %
\rhead{\emph{#1}} %
\cfoot{\thepage}
\renewcommand{\headrulewidth}{0pt}}

%=====================================================================
%============================== examples =============================

\newcommand{\eg}[1]{(\ref{#1})}
\newcommand{\subeg}[2]{(\ref{#1}\ref{#2})}
\newcommand{\dblsubeg}[3]{(\ref{#1}\ref{#2},~\ref{#3})}
\newcommand{\dashsubeg}[3]{(\ref{#1}\ref{#2}--\ref{#3})}

%=====================================================================
%========================= font manipulation =========================

\newcommand{\word}[1]{\textit{#1}}
\newcommand{\tech}[1]{\textit{#1}}
\renewcommand{\emph}[1]{\textit{#1}}
\renewcommand{\underline}[1]{\uline{#1}}
\newcommand{\highlight}[1]{\underline{#1}}

\begin{document}

%=====================================================================
%=====================================================================

\headingdesign{}
\thispagestyle{empty}

\handoutfrontmatter{Assignment 1}{Distributed Jan 4; due Jan 18}

\begin{center}
  \framebox{ \parbox{0.95\textwidth}{
      \textbf{Submission information (for this and all other assignments)}\\
      As described on the syllabus, all work for this class must be
      submitted electronically via our course's Canvas site.  Work
      submitted in any other way will not be accepted. Work is always
      due by 9:45 am on the due date. At 9:46 am, it counts as 1 day
      late. For more on the policies:
      \url{http://www.stanford.edu/class/linguist130a/syllabus.html} }
  }
\end{center}

%=====================================================================
%=====================================================================

\section{A bit of fieldwork\hfill[3 points]}

The class 1 handout called `Overview of topics' briefly reviews some
of the phenomena we will address in this course. First, look it over
again, thinking in particular about the topics and the examples that
are relevant to them. Second, find a naturally occurring example that
is relevant to one of the topics, and provide (i) the example and its
source, (ii) its associated topic, and (iii) a couple of sentences
explaining why the example is relevant to the topic.
\\[6pt]
Your example can come from anywhere -- printed
material, television, the Web, radio, overheard conversations \ldots\
anywhere humans use language. If you get it from somewhere private
(e.g., text messages, a conversation), please change any identifying
information.

%=====================================================================

\section{Pragmatically enriching indirect answers\hfill[2 points]}

In the `Bronston' example from the `Overview of topics' handout,
Bronston is asked the yes/no question ``Have you ever [had a Swiss
bank account]?'', and he replies ``The company had a bank account
there for about six months, in Zurich''. People generally infer that
he means something like ``No, but~\ldots'', even though he does not
utter those words. This is presumably because some information about
the context and world knowledge come into play.

In the following small dialogue, a yes/no question is also posed, but
there is more uncertainty about the extent to which the answer is
intended to resolve the question posed:
%
\begin{itemize}\setlength{\itemsep}{0pt}
\item[A:] Is Deirdre in her office?
\item[B:] Deirdre is sick today.
\end{itemize}
%
Your task: Identify a piece of contextual information, shared between
A and B, that would lead A to conclude that B intended a ``yes''
answer, and identify another piece of such contextual information that
would lead A to conclude that B intended a ``no'' answer. I'm assuming
these pieces of contextual information can be described in a sentence
or two each.

%=====================================================================
\newpage

\section{Entailment\hfill[2 points]}

% \newcommand{\thisdet}{Between five and ten}

\newcommand{\thisdet}{At most nine}

This question assumes you have watched the `Entailment' screencast and/or
participated in the in-class discussion of the topic.
\\[6pt]
For the sentence pairs in \eg{1} and \eg{2}, does the (a) sentence
entails the (b) sentence? If it does, give an informal argument in
favor of that judgment (1--2 sentences). If it doesn't, describe a
counter-exemplifying situation.

\begin{examples}
\item\label{1}\setlength{\itemsep}{0pt}
  \begin{examples}\setlength{\itemsep}{0pt}
  \item \thisdet\ Swedish students danced.
  \item \thisdet\ students danced.
  \end{examples}
\item\label{2}
  \begin{examples}\setlength{\itemsep}{0pt}
  \item \thisdet\ students waltzed.
  \item \thisdet\ students danced.
  \end{examples}
\end{examples}

%=====================================================================

\section{Intensional identity and Cresswell's Principle\hfill[2 points]}

This question assumes you have studied the handout/reading
`Perspectives on meaning and interpretation'.
\\[6pt]
For truth-conditional theories, intensions are crucial to capturing
intuitive meaning distinctions. Consider two sentences that are true
in exactly the same situations in our particular reality but
nonetheless differ intuitively in their meanings. Intensions save the
day here: we can say that there are possible worlds where their truth
conditions do differ. However, what about sentences that are true in
\emph{all} possible worlds, like \word{two is greater than one} and
\word{two is a prime number}? Such sentences can intuitively differ
from each other in meaning, and yet their intensions are identical.
\\[6pt]
Your task: assess whether these examples of intensional identity
challenge Cresswell's ``Most Certain'' Principle. (3--5 sentence
answer.)

%=====================================================================

\section{The nature of semantic mistakes\hfill[3 points]}

This question assumes you have studied the handout/reading
`Perspectives on meaning and interpretation', which provides short
readings on I-semantics (Jackendoff) and conventionalism (Lewis).
\\[6pt]
Language users have intuitions that it is possible to be mistaken
about the meaning of a word. For example, if one believes that
\word{restive} means `relaxed', there is a clear sense in which one is
mistaken, even though this is a coherent and understandable belief.
\\[6pt]
Your task: discuss how each of I-semantics and conventionalism might
characterize such apparent mistakes, noting any challenges you see for
those views. (5--10 sentence answer.)

%=====================================================================

\section{Classifying \word{plastic}\hfill[2 points]}

Provide an argument that \word{plastic}, used as an adjective, is
\textbf{not} subsective. (An argument in this context is just an
example involving a modified noun and a brief statement of why the
example is relevant to establishing this negative claim about the
adjective's classification.)

%=====================================================================

\end{document}
