\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}
\usepackage{booktabs}
\usepackage{natbib}
\usepackage{inconsolata}

%=====================================================================
%============================== bibtex ===============================

\bibliographystyle{chicago}

\bibpunct[; ]{(}{)}{;}{a}{}{,}  % natbib citation style

\newcommand{\posscitet}[1]{\citeauthor{#1}'s (\citeyear{#1})}

%=====================================================================
%============================= 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 2}{Distributed Jan 18; due Jan 25}

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

\section{Idioms and compositionality\hfill [3 points]}

The following are common English idioms with corresponding
non-idiomatic meanings for them:
%
\begin{examples}
\item
  \begin{examples}
  \item \word{kick the bucket} (`die')
  \item \word{kick the habit} (`quit')
  \item \word{touch a nerve} (`annoy')
  \item \word{leave no stone unturned} (`be thorough')
  \item \word{pull strings} (`use one's connections to gain an
    advantage')
  \end{examples}
\end{examples}
%
This question asks you to explore the relevance of idioms to the
principle of compositionality.

\paragraph{Task 1} Look again at the start of section 11.2 of
\citet{Partee95}, paying special attention to the principle of
compositionality and its associated ideas. On that basis, articulate
the challenge that idioms pose for compositionality. This can be done
in a few sentences, but make sure you are thorough enough that a
reader who didn't know about the principle of compositionality could
understand your answer.

\paragraph{Task 2} Suppose we responded to the challenge by treating
idioms as unanalyzed lexical items. On this analysis, \word{kick the
  bucket} would simply be an intransitive verb with presumably the
same meaning as \word{die}. What challenge do the following examples,
from \citealt{Nunberg:Sag:Wasow:1994}, pose for this response?

\begin{examples}
\item\label{mod}
  \begin{examples}
  \item kick the filthy habit
  \item touch a couple of nerves
  \item leave no legal stone unturned
  \item Pat got the job by pulling strings that weren't available to
    anyone else.
  \item \word{bucket list}, a recent innovation derived from
    \word{kick the bucket} and referring to a set of things one wants
    to do before one dies.
  \end{examples}
\end{examples}
%
Write a short paragraph (say, 7--10 sentences) explaining the nature
of the challenge posed by these examples for the lexical analysis of
idioms. You do not need to make reference to all of the examples in
\eg{mod}, and you are also free to introduce new data.

\paragraph{Task 3} In your view as a semanticist, how should we
resolve this tension between the principle of compositionality and the
existence of idioms? We're open-minded about this and will be looking
for a clear statement of your proposed response and a clear argument
in favor of that response. (Expected length: 10--15 sentences, but
this is not a hard restriction.)

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

\section{Icy treats \hfill [3 points]}

The compounds \word{Italian ice}, \word{shaved ice}, and \word{water
  ice} are all different regional names for essentially the same sweet
treat of watery ice covered in usually fruity syrup.\footnote{See
  \url{https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_ice}.  My apologies if
  saying these are all ``the same treat'' offends your regional or
  culinary sensibilities. Of a fourth contender \word{shave ice},
  Wikipedia is very clear: ``Not to be confused with shaved ice.''}

\paragraph{Task 1} Classify each of these compounds using the
fine-grained modifier--head relation categories from Appendix~A of the
Levin et al.\ paper (the ones used by the annotators in the corpus
study). Not all of these classifications are fully straightforward, so
briefly explain the choices and note any indeterminacy.

\paragraph{Task 2} Are your classification choices consistent with the
core hypotheses of the Levin et al.\ paper? For each one, explain why
it is or is not. (If there are inconsistencies, we would love to hear
potential explanations for why, but that is not required.)

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

\section{What would \word{shrimp kale} be? \hfill [4 points]}

One of the novel compounds in \posscitet{Levin-etal:2018}
comprehension study is \word{shrimp kale}, which received the
following distribution of responses:
%
\begin{center}
  \begin{tabular}[c]{l r}
    \toprule
    Metarelation & Responses \\
    \midrule
    Event      & 6 (37.5\%)\\
    Perceptual & 9 (56.3\%)  \\
    Location   & 1 \phantom{0}(6.2\%)\\
    \bottomrule
  \end{tabular}
\end{center}
%
The responses are more evenly spread out across the categories than
we might expect. Compare for, example, \word{swamp squash},
which received 16/16 (100\%) Location responses.

\paragraph{Task 1} Classify the modifier and head in \word{shrimp
  kale} according to the artifact vs.~natural kind distinction, as in
the paper. You can look this up in the paper, so this should be
straightforward, but it's an important part of the reasoning.  Say
also whether the entire compound would refer to an artifact or natural
kind, following the expected constraints on endocentric compounds.

\paragraph{Task 2} Relate this response distribution to the
essence-related modifier hypothesis and the event-related modifier
hypothesis. Is this the expected distribution given the
classifications of the parts and the statement of these hypotheses?
Why or why not? This is obviously not a completely transparent
judgment (as it would be for \word{swamp squash}), so I advise taking
at least 5--7 sentences to explain and justify your reasoning.
\\\\
In case it is useful, here are the raw responses with their codes
(from Table~2 in the paper) and the associated metarelation.  (The
codes for the `event' examples seem informative to me.)

\begin{center}
  \begin{tabular}{lll}
    \toprule
    Response &         Code & Metarelation \\
    \midrule
    A type of salad made with kale and shrimp. &      made of &        event \\
    It is a kale with shrimp in it.  A plant that has shrimp in it.  &      made of &        event \\
    A recipe involving the use of shrimp and kale &      made of &        event \\
    a kale and seafood recipe. &      made of &        event \\
    a kale and shrimp pasta dish &      made of &        event \\
    kale made especially to garnish shrimp &      purpose &        event \\
    A bitter green grown in the ocean &      habitat &     location \\
    a variety of kale that has characteristics of shrimp (color, etc.) &        color &   perceptual \\
    Abnormally small kale. &    dimension &   perceptual \\
    A miniature, leafy vegetable. &    dimension &   perceptual \\
    kale in the shape of a shrimp &        shape &   perceptual \\
    kale that tastes like shrimp &  taste/smell &   perceptual \\
    shrimp flavored kale &  taste/smell &   perceptual \\
    Kale that tastes like shrimp. &  taste/smell &   perceptual \\
    kale vegetable that is small and shaped liked shrimp &       visual &   perceptual \\
    a shrimp that looks like a kale &       visual &   perceptual \\
    \bottomrule
  \end{tabular}
\end{center}

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

\begin{thebibliography}{}

\bibitem[Levin et al.(2019)]{Levin-etal:2019}
  Levin, Beth; Lelia Glass; and Dan Jurafsky. 2019. Systematicity in
  the semantics of noun compounds: the role of artifacts vs.\ natural
  kinds. \emph{Linguistics} 57(3): 429--471.

\bibitem[Nunberg et al.(1994)]{Nunberg:Sag:Wasow:1994}
  Nunberg, Geoffrey; Ivan A.~Sag; and Thomas
  Wasow. 1994. Idioms. \emph{Language} 70(3): 491--538.

\bibitem[Partee (1995)]{Partee95}
  Partee, Barbara H. 1995. Lexical semantics and compositionality. In
  Lila R.~Gleitman, Mark Liberman, eds., \emph{Invitation to Cognitive
    Science}, 311--360. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

\end{thebibliography}

\end{document}
