Journal of Logic, Language and Information

, Volume 4, Issue 4, pp 273–300 | Cite as

Nominal comparatives and Generalized Quantifiers

  • John Nerbonne
Article

Abstract

This work adopts the perspective of plural logic and measurement theory in order first to focus on the microstructure of comparative determiners; and second, to derive the properties of comparative determiners as these are studied in Generalized Quantifier Theory, locus of the most sophisticated semantic analysis of natural language determiners. The work here appears to be the first to examine comparatives within plural logic, a step which appears necessary, but which also harbors specific analytical problems examined here.

Since nominal comparatives involve plural and mass reference, we begin with a domain of discourse upon which a lattice structure (Link's) is imposed, and which maps (via abstract dimensions such asweight in kilograms) to concrete measures (in N,R+). The mapping must be homomorphic and Archimedean. Comparisons begin as simple predicates on dimensions or measures; from these we derive classes of predicates on the domain, i.e., generalized determiners (quantifiers), and show, e.g., how monotonicity properties follow in the derivation. This results in a proposal for a logical language which includes derived determiners, and which is an attractive target for semantics interpretation; it also turns out that some interesting comparative determiners are first order, at least when restricted to nonparametric and noncollective predications.

Key words

Natural language semantics quantifiers comparatives plural logic 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Atlas, J., 1984, “Comparative Adjectives and Adverbials of Degree: An Introduction to Radically Radical Pragmatics”,Linguistics and Philosophy bf 7(4), 347–377.Google Scholar
  2. Ballard, B. 1989, “A general computational treatment of comparatives for natural language question answering”, inProc. of the 26th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 41–48. author supply Town, publisher's nameGoogle Scholar
  3. Barwise, J. 1987, “Noun phrases, generalized quantifiers, and anaphora”, pp. 1–29 inGeneralized Quantifiers and Natural Language, P. Gärdenfors, ed., Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
  4. Barwise, J. and Cooper, R. 1981, “Generalized quantifiers and natural language”,Linguistics and Philosophy 4(2), 159–219.Google Scholar
  5. Benthem, J. van 1983, “Determiners and logic”,Linguistics and Philosophy 6, 447–478.Google Scholar
  6. Bresnan, J. 1973, “Syntax of the comparative clause construction in English”,Linguistic Inquiry 4(2), 275–343.Google Scholar
  7. Burris, S. and H. P. Sankappanavar, 1982,A Course in Universal Algebra, New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  8. Carston, R., 1985, “A Re-Analysis of some ‘Quantity Implicatures’”, Manuscript. London: University College.Google Scholar
  9. Cartwright, H., 1975, “Amounts and measures of amount”,Nous 9, 143–64, Also pp. 179–98 in Mass Terms: Some Philosophical Problems, F. J. Pelletier, ed., 1979, Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
  10. Cresswell, M. J., 1976, “The semantics of degree”, pp. 261–292 inMontague Grammar, B. H. Partee, ed., New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  11. Does, J. van der, 1993, “Sums and Quantifiers”,Linguistics and Philosophy,16(5), 509–550.Google Scholar
  12. Horn, L. R., 1972,On the Semantic Properties of Logical Operators in English, Ph.D. thesis, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
  13. Keenan, E. L. and Moss, L., 1984, “Generalized quantifiers and the expressive power of natural language”, pp. 73–124 inGeneralized Quantifiers, J. van Benthem and A. ter Meulen, eds., Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
  14. Klein, E., 1981, “The interpretation of adjectival, nominal and adverbial comparatives”, pp. 73–124 inFormal Methods in the Study of Language, J. Groenendijk, T. Janssen, and M. Stokhof, eds., Amsterdam: Mathematical Centre.Google Scholar
  15. Krantz, D. H., Luce, R. D., Suppes, P., and Tversky, A., 1971,Foundations of Measurement, New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  16. Krifka, M., 1987,Nominal Reference and Temporal Constitution: Toward a Semantics of Quantity, Technical Report 17, Forschungsstelle für natürlich-sprachliche Systeme, Universität Tübingen.Google Scholar
  17. Krifka, M., 1989, “Nominal reference, temporal constitution, and quantification in event semantics”, pp. 75–115 inSemantics and Contextual Expressions, R. Bartsch, J. van Benthem, and P. van Emde Boas, eds., Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
  18. Krifka, M., 1990, “Four thousand ships passed through the lock: Object-induced measure functions on events”,Linguistics and Philosophy 13(5), 487–520.Google Scholar
  19. Larson, R., 1988, “Scope and Comparatives”,Linguistics and Philosophy 11(1), 1–26.Google Scholar
  20. Lasersohn, P., 1990, “Group Action and Spatio-Temporal Proximity”,Linguistics and Philosophy 13(2), 179–206.Google Scholar
  21. Laubsch, J., 1989,Logical Form Simplification., STL report, Hewlett-Packard.Google Scholar
  22. Link, G., 1983, “The logical analysis of plurals and mass terms: A lattice-theoretical approach”, pp. 302–323 inMeaning, Use, and the Interpretation of Language, R. Bäuerle, U. Egli, and A. von Stechow, eds., Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  23. Link, G., 1987, “Generalized quantifiers and plurals”, pp. 151–180 inGeneralized Quantifiers and Natural Language, P. Gärdenfors, ed., Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
  24. Lønning, J. T., 1987, “Collective readings of definite and indefinite noun phrases”, pp. 203–235 inGeneralized Quantifiers and Natural Language, P. Gärdenfors, ed., Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
  25. Lønning, J. T., 1989a, “Computational semantics of mass terms”, pp. 205–211 inEuropean ACL.Google Scholar
  26. Lønning, J. T., 1989b,Some Aspects of the Logic of Plural Noun Phrases, Technical Report 11, Department of Mathematics, University of Oslo.Google Scholar
  27. Meulen, A. ter, 1980,Substances, Quantities and Individuals: A Study in the Formal Semantics of Mass Terms, Ph.D. thesis, Stanford, Available throughIndiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
  28. Nerbonne, J., Iida, M., and Ladusaw, W., 1990, “Semantics of common noun phrase anaphora”, pp. 379–394 inProc. of the 9th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, A. Halpern, ed., Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
  29. Nerbonne, J., Laubsch, J., Diagne, A. K., and Oepen, S., 1993, “Software for applied semantics’, pp. 35–56 inProc. of Pacific Asia Conference on Formal and Computational Linguistics, C.-R. Huang, C. H. Hui Chang, K. Jiann Chen, and C.-H. Liu, eds., Taipei: Academica Sinica. Also available as DFKI Research Report RR-92-55.Google Scholar
  30. Nerbonne, J. and Proudian, D., 1987,The HP-NL System, Technical report, Hewlett-Packard Labs.Google Scholar
  31. Pollard, C. and Sag, I., 1987,Information-Based Syntax and Semantics, Vol.I, Stanford: CSLI Press.Google Scholar
  32. Pollard, C. and Sag, I., 1994,Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar Stanford: CSLI Press.Google Scholar
  33. Pinkal, M., 1989, “Die Semantik von Satzkomparativen”,Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 8(2), 206–256.Google Scholar
  34. Rayner, M. and Banks, A., 1990, “An implementable semantics for comparative constructions”,Computational Linguistics 16(2), 86–112.Google Scholar
  35. Roberts, C., 1987,Modal Subordination, Anaphora, and Distributivity, Ph.D. thesis, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.Google Scholar
  36. Stechow, A. von, 1984, “Comparing semantic theories of comparison”,Journal of Semantics 3, 1–77.Google Scholar
  37. Westerståhl, D., 1989, “Quantifiers in formal and natural languages”, pp. 1–132 inHandbook of Philosophical Logic, Vol.IV, D. Gabbay and F. Guenthner, eds., Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • John Nerbonne
    • 1
  1. 1.Centre for the Behavioral and Cognitive NeurosciencesRijksuniversiteit GroningenAS GrongingenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations