Movatterモバイル変換


[0]ホーム

URL:


Jump to content
WikipediaThe Free Encyclopedia
Search

Conservativity

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Proposed linguistic universal

Informal semanticsconservativity is a proposedlinguistic universal which states that anydeterminerD{\displaystyle D} must obey the equivalenceD(A,B)D(A,AB){\displaystyle D(A,B)\leftrightarrow D(A,A\cap B)}. For instance, theEnglish determiner "every" can be seen to be conservative by theequivalence of the following two sentences, schematized ingeneralized quantifier notation to the right.[1][2][3]

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

Conceptually, conservativity can be understood as saying that theelements ofB{\displaystyle B} which are not elements ofA{\displaystyle A} are not relevant for evaluating the truth of thedeterminer 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 asdenotations of natural language expressions. For instance, consider the imaginary determinershmore{\displaystyle shmore} defined so thatshmore(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,shmore(A,B){\displaystyle shmore(A,B)} will be false butshmore(A,AB){\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 asverb phrases.[4]

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

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

See also

[edit]

Notes

[edit]
  1. ^abcDag, Westerståhl (2016). "Generalized Quantifiers". InAloni, Maria; Dekker, Paul (eds.).Cambridge Handbook of Formal Semantics. Cambridge University Press.ISBN 978-1-107-02839-5.
  2. ^abcGamut, 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. ^abcBarwise, 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.
Central concepts
Topics
Areas
Phenomena
Formalism
Formal systems
Concepts
See also
Stub icon

Thissemantics article is astub. You can help Wikipedia byexpanding it.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conservativity&oldid=1230062708"
Categories:
Hidden categories:

[8]ページ先頭

©2009-2025 Movatter.jp