Conservativity

In formal semantics conservativity is a proposed linguistic universal which states that any determiner D {\displaystyle D} must obey the equivalence D ( A , B ) D ( A , A B ) {\displaystyle D(A,B)\leftrightarrow D(A,A\cap B)} . For instance, the English determiner "every" can be seen to be conservative by the equivalence of the following two sentences, schematized in generalized quantifier notation to the right.[1][2][3]

  1. Every aardvark bites.                                                               e v e r y ( A , B ) {\displaystyle \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \rightsquigarrow every(A,B)}
  2. Every aardvark is an aardvark that bites.     e v e r y ( A , A B ) {\displaystyle \ \ \rightsquigarrow every(A,A\cap B)}

Conceptually, conservativity can be understood as saying that the elements of B {\displaystyle B} which are not elements of A {\displaystyle A} are not relevant for evaluating the truth of the determiner phrase as a whole. For instance, truth of the first sentence above does not depend on which biting non-aardvarks exist.[1][2][3]

Conservativity is significant to semantic theory because there are many logically possible determiners which are not attested as denotations of natural language expressions. For instance, consider the imaginary determiner s h m o r e {\displaystyle shmore} defined so that s h m o r e ( A , B ) {\displaystyle shmore(A,B)} is true iff | A | > | B | {\displaystyle |A|>|B|} . If there are 50 biting aardvarks, 50 non-biting aardvarks, and millions of non-aardvark biters, s h m o r e ( A , B ) {\displaystyle shmore(A,B)} will be false but s h m o r e ( A , A B ) {\displaystyle shmore(A,A\cap B)} will be true.[1][2][3]

Some potential counterexamples to conservativity have been observed, notably, the English expression "only". This expression has been argued to not be a determiner since it can stack with bona fide determiners and can combine with non-nominal constituents such as verb phrases.[4]

  1. Only some aardvarks bite.
  2. This aardvark will only [VP bite playfully.]

Different analyses have treated conservativity as a constraint on the lexicon, a structural constraint arising from the architecture of the syntax-semantics interface, as well as constraint on learnability.[5][6][7]

See also

Notes

  1. ^ a b c Dag, Westerståhl (2016). "Generalized Quantifiers". In Aloni, Maria; Dekker, Paul (eds.). Cambridge Handbook of Formal Semantics. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-107-02839-5.
  2. ^ a b c Gamut, L.T.F. (1991). Logic, Language and Meaning: Intensional Logic and Logical Grammar. University of Chicago Press. pp. 245–249. ISBN 0-226-28088-8.
  3. ^ a b c Barwise, Jon; Cooper, Robin (1981). "Generalized Quantifiers and Natural Language". Linguistics and Philosophy. 4 (2): 159–219. doi:10.1007/BF00350139.
  4. ^ von Fintel, Kai (1994). Restrictions on quantifier domains (PhD). University of Massachusetts Amherst.
  5. ^ Hunter, Tim; Lidz, Jeffrey (2013). "Conservativity and learnability of determiners". Journal of Semantics. 30 (3): 315–334. doi:10.1093/jos/ffs014.
  6. ^ Romoli, Jacopo (2015). "A structural account of conservativity". Semantics-Syntax Interface. 2 (1).
  7. ^ Steinert-Threlkeld, Shane; Szymanik, Jakub (2019). "Learnability and semantic universals". Semantics and Pragmatics. 12 (4): 1. doi:10.3765/sp.12.4. hdl:11572/364230. S2CID 54087074.
  • v
  • t
  • e
Formal semantics (natural language)
Central concepts
Topics
Areas
Phenomena
Formalism
Formal systems
Concepts
See also
Stub icon

This semantics article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.

  • v
  • t
  • e