Scope (formal semantics)

Last updated

In formal semantics, the scope of a semantic operator is the semantic object to which it applies. For instance, in the sentence "Paulina doesn't drink beer but she does drink wine," the proposition that Paulina drinks beer occurs within the scope of negation, but the proposition that Paulina drinks wine does not. Scope can be thought of as the semantic order of operations.

Contents

One of the major concerns of research in formal semantics is the relationship between operators' syntactic positions and their semantic scope. This relationship is not transparent, since the scope of an operator need not directly correspond to its surface position and a single surface form can be semantically ambiguous between different scope construals. Some theories of scope posit a level of syntactic structure called logical form, in which an item's syntactic position corresponds to its semantic scope. Others theories compute scope relations in the semantics itself, using formal tools such as type shifters, monads, and continuations.

Phenomena

Scope ambiguity

The scope of an operator need not correspond directly to the word order of the sentence it occurs in. For instance, some sentences display a scope ambiguity in that the relative scopes of two operators can be construed in multiple ways. [1] [2]

  1. Every hedgehog is friends with a giraffe.

This sentence can be understood in two ways. On the inverse scope reading, there is a single giraffe who is very popular in the hedgehog community. On the surface scope reading, the sentence can be true even if the hedgehogs are friends with different giraffes.

Split scope

Split scope is the phenomenon where different components of an expressions item's meaning take scope in different places. Negative quantifiers are one category of expression which have been argued to take split scope.

  1. The company need fire no employees.

On the de re (non-split) reading, this sentence means that there is no employee such that the company needs to fire that employee. This is a non-split scope reading since "no" simply takes scope above the modal "need". On the split scope reading of this sentence, it means that it is not the case that the company needs to fire any employees. On this reading, "no" decomposes into a negation scoping above "need" and an existential quantifier scoping below it. [3]

Indefinites have been argued to have split scope, having separate existential scope and distributive scope. This fact can be seen in the following example: [4] [5] [6]

  1. If three relatives of mine die, I will inherit a house.

Among this sentence's reading is one which means "There exists a set of three relatives such that, if those three relatives die, I will inherit a house." On this reading, the indefinite "three relatives of mine" takes existential scope outside the conditional–– it asserts unconditionally that those three relatives do in fact exist. However, it the indefinite takes distributive scope inside the conditional–– the speaker will inherit a house if three relatives die, not if x dies where x can be any of those three relatives.

Definite descriptions have also been argued to have split scope. Definites are classically considered to presuppose that their referents are unique. For instance, the definite description "the cat" is infelicitous in a context where there are multiple cats which the speaker could have in mind. However, this generalization seems to be contradicted by Haddock descriptions such as the following:

  1. Context: In front of the speaker are numerous hats, one of which contains a rabbit.
    Haddock description: The rabbit in the hat

This noun phrase is felicitous to use in this context, even though there is no unique hat. What seems to license this surprising use of the definite description is the fact that the context contains a unique rabbit-containing hat. To cash out this idea, it has been proposed that the uniqueness presupposition of "the hat" takes scope separately from the rest of the definite's meaning. In other words, a witness set is establishes low in the structure, but is checked for singletonness higher up. [7] [8]

Scope islands

While operators can often take scope above their surface position, there are not entirely free to take scope wherever they want. For instance, as illustrated by Sentence 1 below, quantifiers that originate inside an if-clause usually cannot take scope outside of that "if"-clause. This sentence cannot mean that Beth will inherit one house for each dead relative. [9] [10]

  1. If every relative of mine dies, I will inherit a house.

This fact parallels the fact that a wh-phrase cannot be extracted from an "if"-clause, as shown in Sentence 2.

  1. Which relativei will you inherit a fortune if ti dies?

Examples of this sort have been used to argue that scope relations are determined by syntactic movement operations.

Aside from their theoretical significance, scope islands are also practically useful since they can be used to construct unambiguous paraphrases of sentences with scope ambiguities. [10]

Exceptional scope

While most operators are unable to scope out of an island, others can. [11] For instance, the indefinite "a" in the sentence below can take scope outside of its surface position inside an "if"-clause. This sentence can mean that there is a particular relative who must die for the speaker to get a house.

  1. If a relative of mine dies, I will inherit a house.

Examples of this sort have been used to argue that indefinites do not have standard generalized quantifier denotations. On the choice function approach proposed by Tanya Reinhart, indefinites contribute a variable over choice functions which can be existentially closed at any point higher in the structure. [12] Angelika Kratzer proposed another choice function-based theory, which is similar to Reinhart's except that the choice function variable is left free. [13] Recent work such as Charlow (2020) treats indefinites as denoting sets of individuals which can be type shifted so that they take scope in a manner similar to Karttunen's (1977) alternative-based mechanism for wh-questions. [14] [15]


Formal approaches to scope

Tanya Reinhart pioneered the structural approach to scope. Tanya reinhart.jpg
Tanya Reinhart pioneered the structural approach to scope.

The structural view of scope is one influential view which posits a close relationship between syntax and semantics. This approach is characterized by the following hypothesis, first formulated by Tanya Reinhart: [16] [17]

Hypothesis about scope and domain: The semantic scope of an operator corresponds to the position of the item which expresses it at some level of syntactic representation.

This view is widely adopted in generative approaches such as that of Heim and Kratzer (1998). In these approaches, the relevant syntactic level is logical form and the syntactic notion which corresponds to semantic scope is typically identified as c-command. [16]

In structural approaches, discrepancies between an expression's surface position and its semantic scope are explained by syntactic movement operations such as quantifier raising. [18] [19] [20] The movement approach is motivated in large part by the fact that quantifier scope seems to obey many of the same restrictions that movement does, e.g. islands.

One prominent alternative to the structural view is the type shifting view first proposed by Barbara Partee and Mats Rooth. [21] [22] This approach uses type shifters to govern scopal relations. Since type shifters are applied during the process of semantic interpretation, this approach allows scopal relations to be partly independent of syntactic structure. The type shifting approach serves as the basis of many recent proposals for exceptional scope, split scope, and other troublesome scope-related phenomena. [20]


See also

Related Research Articles

Lexical semantics, as a subfield of linguistic semantics, is the study of word meanings. It includes the study of how words structure their meaning, how they act in grammar and compositionality, and the relationships between the distinct senses and uses of a word.

Irene Roswitha Heim is a linguist and a leading specialist in semantics. She was a professor at the University of Texas at Austin and UCLA before moving to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1989, where she is Professor Emerita of Linguistics. She served as Head of the Linguistics Section of the Department of Linguistics and Philosophy.

In generative grammar and related frameworks, a node in a parse tree c-commands its sister node and all of its sister's descendants. In these frameworks, c-command plays a central role in defining and constraining operations such as syntactic movement, binding, and scope. Tanya Reinhart introduced c-command in 1976 as a key component of her theory of anaphora. The term is short for "constituent command".

In formal linguistics, discourse representation theory (DRT) is a framework for exploring meaning under a formal semantics approach. One of the main differences between DRT-style approaches and traditional Montagovian approaches is that DRT includes a level of abstract mental representations within its formalism, which gives it an intrinsic ability to handle meaning across sentence boundaries. DRT was created by Hans Kamp in 1981. A very similar theory was developed independently by Irene Heim in 1982, under the name of File Change Semantics (FCS). Discourse representation theories have been used to implement semantic parsers and natural language understanding systems.

In generative grammar and related approaches, the logical form (LF) of a linguistic expression is the variant of its syntactic structure which undergoes semantic interpretation. It is distinguished from phonetic form, the structure which corresponds to a sentence's pronunciation. These separate representations are postulated in order to explain the ways in which an expression's meaning can be partially independent of its pronunciation, e.g. scope ambiguities.

In generative grammar, the technical term operator denotes a type of expression that enters into an a-bar movement dependency. One often says that the operator "binds a variable".

In semantics, donkey sentences are sentences that contain a pronoun with clear meaning but whose syntactic role in the sentence poses challenges to linguists. Such sentences defy straightforward attempts to generate their formal language equivalents. The difficulty is with understanding how English speakers parse such sentences.

A bound variable pronoun is a pronoun that has a quantified determiner phrase (DP) – such as every, some, or who – as its antecedent.

Dynamic semantics is a framework in logic and natural language semantics that treats the meaning of a sentence as its potential to update a context. In static semantics, knowing the meaning of a sentence amounts to knowing when it is true; in dynamic semantics, knowing the meaning of a sentence means knowing "the change it brings about in the information state of anyone who accepts the news conveyed by it." In dynamic semantics, sentences are mapped to functions called context change potentials, which take an input context and return an output context. Dynamic semantics was originally developed by Irene Heim and Hans Kamp in 1981 to model anaphora, but has since been applied widely to phenomena including presupposition, plurals, questions, discourse relations, and modality.

Formal semantics is the study of grammatical meaning in natural languages using formal tools from logic, mathematics and theoretical computer science. It is an interdisciplinary field, sometimes regarded as a subfield of both linguistics and philosophy of language. It provides accounts of what linguistic expressions mean and how their meanings are composed from the meanings of their parts. The enterprise of formal semantics can be thought of as that of reverse-engineering the semantic components of natural languages' grammars.

In linguistics, an expression is semantically ambiguous when it can have multiple meanings. The higher the number of synonyms a word has, the higher the degree of ambiguity. Like other kinds of ambiguity, semantic ambiguities are often clarified by context or by prosody. One's comprehension of a sentence in which a semantically ambiguous word is used is strongly influenced by the general structure of the sentence. The language itself is sometimes a contributing factor in the overall effect of semantic ambiguity, in the sense that the level of ambiguity in the context can change depending on whether or not a language boundary is crossed.

Veneeta Dayal is an American linguist. She is currently the Dorothy R. Diebold Professor of Linguistics at Yale University.

Lisa Christine Matthewson is Professor of Linguistics in the Department of Linguistics at University of British Columbia with specialties in pragmatics and semantics. She has also done significant work with semantic fieldwork and in the preservation and oral history of First Nations languages, especially St'át'imcets and Gitksan. Matthewson's appointment at UBC was notable because she was the first female full professor in the department's history.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Pauline Jacobson</span> American linguist

Pauline (Polly) Jacobson is a professor of Cognitive and Linguistic Sciences at Brown University, where she has been since 1977. She is known for her work on variable free semantics, direct compositionality, and transderivationality.

A bare noun is a noun that is used without a surface determiner or quantifier. In natural languages, the distribution of bare nouns is subject to various language-specific constraints. Under the DP hypothesis a noun in an argument position must have a determiner or quantifier that introduces the noun, warranting special treatment of the bare nouns that seemingly contradict this. As a result, bare nouns have attracted extensive study in the fields of both semantics and syntax.

In formal semantics and pragmatics, modal subordination is the phenomenon whereby a modal expression is interpreted relative to another modal expression to which it is not syntactically subordinate. For instance, the following example does not assert that the birds will in fact be hungry, but rather that hungry birds would be a consequence of Joan forgetting to fill the birdfeeder. This interpretation was unexpected in early theories of the syntax-semantics interface since the content concerning the birds' hunger occurs in a separate sentence from the if-clause.

  1. If Joan forgets to fill the birdfeeder, she will feel very bad. The birds will get hungry.

In formal semantics, existential closure is an operation which introduces existential quantification. It was first posited by Irene Heim in her 1982 dissertation, as part of her analysis of indefinites. In her formulation, existential closure is a form of unselective binding which binds any number of variables of any semantic type. In alternative semantics and related frameworks, the term is often applied to a closely related operation which existentially quantifies over a set of propositional alternatives.

In formal semantics, a type shifter is an interpretation rule that changes an expression's semantic type. For instance, the English expression "John" might ordinarily denote John himself, but a type shifting rule called Lift can raise its denotation to a function which takes a property and returns "true" if John himself has that property. Lift can be seen as mapping an individual onto the principal ultrafilter that it generates.

  1. Without type shifting:
  2. Type shifting with Lift:

In linguistics, the syntax–semantics interface is the interaction between syntax and semantics. Its study encompasses phenomena that pertain to both syntax and semantics, with the goal of explaining correlations between form and meaning. Specific topics include scope, binding, and lexical semantic properties such as verbal aspect and nominal individuation, semantic macroroles, and unaccusativity.

An indeterminate pronoun is a pronoun which can show a variety of readings depending on the type of sentence it occurs in. The term "indeterminate pronoun" originates in Kuroda's (1965) thesis and is typically used in reference to wh-indeterminates, which are pronouns which function as an interrogative pronoun in questions, yet come to have additional meanings with other grammatical operators. For example, in Japanese, dare means 'who' in a constituent question like (1) formed with the question-forming operator no:

References

  1. ↑ Heim, Irene; Kratzer, Angelika (1998). Semantics in Generative Grammar. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell. pp. 194–198.
  2. ↑ Ruys, Eddy; Winter, Yoad (2011). "Quantifier scope in formal linguistics." (PDF). In Gabbay, Dov; Guenthner, Franz (eds.). Handbook of Philosophical Logic (2 ed.). Dordrecht: Springer. pp. 159–225. doi:10.1007/978-94-007-0479-4_3. ISBN   978-94-007-0478-7.
  3. ↑ Potts, Chris (2000). "When even no's Neg is splitsville". Jorge Hankamer WebFest. University of California, Santa Cruz Linguistic Department. Retrieved 30 August 2020.
  4. ↑ Barker, Chris (2015). "Scope" (PDF). In Lappin, Shalom; Fox, Chris (eds.). Handbook of Contemporary Semantics (2 ed.). Wiley Blackwell. Section 4.3. doi:10.1002/9781118882139.ch2. ISBN   9781118882139.
  5. ↑ Szabolcsi, Anna (2010). Quantification. Cambridge University Press. p. 92.
  6. ↑ Eddy, Ruys (1992). The scope of indefinites (PhD). Utrecht University.
  7. ↑ Bumford, Dylan (2017). "Split-scope definites: Relative superlatives and Haddock descriptions" (PDF). Linguistics and Philosophy. 40 (6): 549–593. doi:10.1007/s10988-017-9210-2. S2CID   254742178.
  8. ↑ Haddock, Nicholas (1987). "Incremental interpretation and Combinatory Categorial Grammar". Proceedings of The 10th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence. The 10th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence. Vol. 2. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc.
  9. ↑ Ruys, Eddy; Winter, Yoad (2011). "Quantifier scope in formal linguistics." (PDF). In Gabbay, Dov; Guenthner, Franz (eds.). Handbook of Philosophical Logic (2 ed.). Dordrecht: Springer. Section 3.2. doi:10.1007/978-94-007-0479-4_3. ISBN   978-94-007-0478-7.
  10. 1 2 Barker, Chris (2015). "Scope" (PDF). In Lappin, Shalom; Fox, Chris (eds.). Handbook of Contemporary Semantics (2 ed.). Wiley Blackwell. Section 1.6. doi:10.1002/9781118882139.ch2. ISBN   9781118882139.
  11. ↑ Barker, Chris (2015). "Scope" (PDF). In Lappin, Shalom; Fox, Chris (eds.). Handbook of Contemporary Semantics (2 ed.). Wiley Blackwell. Section 5. doi:10.1002/9781118882139.ch2. ISBN   9781118882139.
  12. ↑ Reinhart, Tanya (1997). "Quantifier scope: How labor is divided between QR and choice functions". Linguistics and Philosophy. 20 (4): 335–397. doi:10.1023/A:1005349801431. S2CID   58351641.
  13. ↑ Kratzer, Angelika (1998). "Scope or pseudoscope? Are there wide-scope indefinites?". In Rothstein, Susan (ed.). Events and grammar. Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy. Vol. 70. Dordrecht: Springer. pp. 163–196. doi:10.1007/978-94-011-3969-4_8. ISBN   978-1-4020-0289-2.
  14. ↑ Charlow, Simon (2020). "The scope of alternatives: Indefiniteness and islands". Linguistics and Philosophy. 43 (3): 427–472. doi:10.1007/s10988-019-09278-3. S2CID   254749307.
  15. ↑ Karttunen, Lauri (1977). "Syntax and semantics of questions". Linguistics and Philosophy. 1 (1): 3–44. doi:10.1007/BF00351935. S2CID   64174420.
  16. 1 2 Szabolcsi, Anna (2010). Quantification. Cambridge University Press.
  17. ↑ Reinhart, Tanya (1979). "Syntactic domains for semantic rules". In Günthner, Franz; Schmidt, J.S. (eds.). Formal Semantics and Pragmatics for Natural Languages. Dordrecht: D. Reidel. ISBN   978-90-277-0778-9.
  18. ↑ Heim, Irene; Kratzer, Angelika (1998). Semantics in Generative Grammar. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell. pp. 184–188.
  19. ↑ Ruys, Eddy; Winter, Yoad (2011). "Quantifier scope in formal linguistics." (PDF). In Gabbay, Dov; Guenthner, Franz (eds.). Handbook of Philosophical Logic (2 ed.). Dordrecht: Springer. pp. 159–225. doi:10.1007/978-94-007-0479-4_3. ISBN   978-94-007-0478-7.
  20. 1 2 Barker, Chris (2015). "Scope" (PDF). In Lappin, Shalom; Fox, Chris (eds.). Handbook of Contemporary Semantics (2 ed.). Wiley Blackwell. pp. 40–76. doi:10.1002/9781118882139.ch2. ISBN   9781118882139.
  21. ↑ Partee, Barbara; Rooth, Mats (1983). "Generalized conjunction and type ambiguity". In von Stechow, Arnim; Schwarze, Christoph; Bauerle, Rainer (eds.). Meaning, Use, and Interpretation of Language. Berlin: de Gruyter. pp. 334–356. doi:10.1002/9780470758335.ch14. ISBN   9780470758335.
  22. ↑ Partee, Barbara (1986). "Noun phrase interpretation and type-shifting principles" (PDF). In Groenendijk, Jeroen; de Jong, Dick; Stokhof, Martin (eds.). Studies in Discourse Representation Theory and the Theory of Generalized Quantifiers. Dordrecht: Foris. ISBN   9067652679. S2CID   96440512. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2020-02-11.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.