1. Recall this text:
(6) a. A woman was bitten by a dog. b. She hit it. c. It jumped over a fence.
Assume that the file after (6b), before (6c), is the following (Heim's F2):
[ 1 : is a woman; was bitten by 2; hit 2 ]
[ 2 : is a dog; bit 1; was hit by 1 ]
Here are some possible LFs for "It jumped over a fence".
a) [S [NP_3 a fence ] [ it_2 jumped over e_3 ] ]
b) [S [NP_1 a fence ] [ it_2 jumped over e_1 ] ]
c) [S [NP_5 a fence ] [ it_6 jumped over e_5 ] ]
d) [S [NP_8 a fence ] [ it_2 jumped over e_8 ] ]
Which of a-d are appropriate for F2, according to the Novelty/Familiarity condition? (The indefinite should of course be marked [-def] and the pronoun should be marked [+def].) Explain your answer very briefly.
2. Assume that the LF for (6c) is as in (a) above. Show step-by-step how Sat(F2+(6c)) is computed, using rules (16) and (18). No amount of detail is too much.
3. One of the problems for Russell's analysis was examples like "A dog came in. It lay down under the table." We have seen how these kinds of cases work. One of the key arguments in *favor* of Russell's analysis was the behavior of indefinites under negation: examples like "It is not the case that a dog came in." Heim says at the very end of her paper how negation works. Show how "It is not the case that a dog came in" would be analyzed using her system.
Remember to put your name on it!