Advertisement

Complexity of Quantified Reciprocals

  • Jakub SzymanikEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy book series (SLAP, volume 96)

Abstract

This chapter is concerned with the linguistic case study. I investigate the computational complexity of different interpretations of reciprocal expressions, like ‘each other’ in English. I show that Ramsey quantifiers express the semantics of reciprocal sentences with a quantifier in the antecedent. As a result I find a computational dichotomy between different interpretations of reciprocals: some of them are tractable when others are intractable. This dichotomy is consistent with well-known semantic distinctions among different interpretations of ‘each other’. I discuss the impact of this dichotomy on the so-called Strong Meaning Hypothesis proposed as a pragmatic explanation for shifts occurring among different reciprocal readings. I argue that shifts between different interpretations of reciprocal sentences, predicted by the Strong Meaning Hypothesis, can be caused by differences in computational complexity between various readings of reciprocity. I overview psychological evidence supporting this claim and show that the distribution of reciprocal sentences in English corpora is consistent with computational complexity distinctions.

Keywords

Reciprocal expressions Strong Meaning Hypothesis Polyadic quantifiers Ramsey quantifiers Computational complexity Tractable cognition thesis Cognitive difficulty Power laws 

References

  1. Beck, S. (2000). The semantics of different: comparison operator and relational adjective.Linguistics and Philosophy, 23(2), 101–139.Google Scholar
  2. Ben-Avi, G., & Winter, Y. (2003). Monotonicity and collective quantification. Journal of Logic, Language and Information, 12(2), 127–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chalmers, D. (1994). A computational foundation for the study of cognition. Minds and Machines, 4.Google Scholar
  4. Cherniak, C. (1981). Minimal rationality. Mind, 90(358), 161–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dalrymple, M., Kanazawa, M., Kim, Y., Mchombo, S., & Peters, S. (1998). Reciprocal expressions and the concept of reciprocity. Linguistics and Philosophy, 21, 159–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Frege, G. (1892). Über Sinn und Bedeutung. Zeitschrift für Philosophie und philosophische Kritik, 100, 25–50.Google Scholar
  7. Frixione, M. (2001). Tractable competence. Minds and Machines, 11(3), 379–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hella, L., Väänänen, J., & Westerståhl, D. (1997). Definability of polyadic lifts of generalized quantifiers. Journal of Logic, Language and Information, 6(3), 305–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Isaac, A., Szymanik, J., & Verbrugge, R. (2014). Logic and complexity in cognitive science. In A. Baltag & S. Smets (Eds.), Johan van Benthem on Logic and Information Dynamics. Outstanding Contributions to Logic (Vol. 5, pp. 787–824). Springer.Google Scholar
  10. Levesque, H. J. (1988). Logic and the complexity of reasoning. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 17(4), 355–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Moschovakis, Y. (2006). A logical calculus of meaning and synonymy. Linguistics and Philosophy, 29(1), 27–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Mostowski, M., & Szymanik, J. (2012). Semantic bounds for everyday language. Semiotica,188(1–4), 363–372.Google Scholar
  13. Mostowski, M., & Wojtyniak, D. (2004). Computational complexity of the semantics of some natural language constructions. Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, 127(1–3), 219–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. van Rooij, I. (2008). The tractable cognition thesis. Cognitive Science: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 32(6), 939–984.Google Scholar
  15. Sabato, S., & Winter, Y. (2005). From semantic restrictions to reciprocal meanings. In Proceedings of FG-MOL 2005. CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
  16. Schlotterbeck, F., & Bott, O. (2013). Easy solutions for a hard problem? The computational complexity of reciprocals with quantificational antecedents. Journal of Logic, Language and Information, 22(4), 363–390.Google Scholar
  17. Szymanik, J. (2010). Computational complexity of polyadic lifts of generalized quantifiers in natural language. Linguistics and Philosophy, 33, 215–250.Google Scholar
  18. Thorne, C., & Szymanik, J. (2015). Semantic complexity of quantifiers and their distribution in corpora. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Computational Semantics.Google Scholar
  19. Väänänen, J. (1997b). Unary quantifiers on finite models. Journal of Logic, Language and Information, 6(3), 275–304.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for Logic, Language and ComputationUniversity of AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations