<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
Thanks, Juergen, for this perspective on quantifiers – which doesn't
conflict at all with what I said.<br>
<br>
Notice that I talked about definitions of terms (especially
"quantifier"), not about "analyses" or "theoretical innovations". I
see terminology as part of our methodology, and I have been
suggesting that we might treat our grammatical terms somewhat like
IPA characters (which are part of our common toolkit, or "meme
pool", without having any theoretical status).<br>
<br>
Outside of the formal semantics community, everyone thinks that
"many" and "all" are typical quantifiers, and (it seems) a clear
majority think that "two" is a quantifier. But no linguist who lacks
special logical-semantic training thinks that all or most of the
following are "quantifiers":<br>
<br>
<span class="fw smaller"><font size="2"><i>everything, nothing,
three books, the ten
professors, John, John and Mary, only John, firemen, every, at
least
five, most, all but ten, less than half of the, John’s, some
student’s, no…except Mary, more male than female,
usually, never, each other</i> (see
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/generalized-quantifiers/">https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/generalized-quantifiers/</a>)</font><br>
<br>
It's an interesting question how to analyze all of these, but the
analyses may be different for different languages, and the
questions are surely not settled. But just as phonologists of
diverse orientations are able to agree on the IPA, we can perhaps
discuss our terminology without necessarily getting into the
details of formal analyses.<br>
<br>
I had understood Christian Lehmann as asking for advice on the
terminology, as he is writing a grammar and wants to use terms
that are as clear and standard as possible.<br>
<br>
Best,<br>
Martin<br>
</span><br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 04.03.22 um 17:02 schrieb Juergen
Bohnemeyer:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:21CEA644-D15C-4ED1-888B-80EC9C4AD1E7@buffalo.edu">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">Dear all — First off, it is ironically precisely Barwise & Cooper’s (1981) generalized quantifier treatment that allows one to capture the meanings of quantificational expressions without reference to the logical quantifiers. In doing so, the GQ analysis also enables us to state what all kinds of quantificational expressions in natural languages have in common (which goes a ways toward answering Christian’s question which started this thread): i.e., subset formation.
More broadly, I think Martin’s response (apologies in advance!) may be an example of what I perceive to be an unfortunate tendency in the descriptive and typological literature to dismiss theoretical innovations as irrelevant to one's work just because the proposers use some formalism or other to articulate their ideas.
To be clear: this attitude is completely understandable. If the author used a formalism that is inaccessible to the reader, and the author didn’t offer any compelling arguments not couched in that formalism for why the reader should bother to engage with the ideas, then that’s on the author. Perhaps simplifying slightly.
Still. One simple test of whether theoretical innovations are relevant to the descriptive and typological literature might be whether the ideas in question *can* be couched without the use of any formalism (or at least without the use of any more parochial, esoteric formalism; after all, there are some formalisms that are at this point pretty much part of the metalinguistic meme pool of the discipline).
And I would argue that the GQ analysis meets that bar.
Last point: on the topic of the relation between (ad)nominal and adverbial quantification, a recent formally couched but typologically insightful handbook piece is Hinterwimmer (2020).
Best — Juergen
Barwise, Jon and Robin Cooper, 1981, “Generalized Quantifiers and Natural Language”, Linguistics and Philosophy, 4(2): 159–219. doi:10.1007/BF00350139
Hinterwimmer, S. (2020). Nominal vs. adverbial quantification. In D. Gutzmann, L. Matthewson, C. Meier, H. Rullmann, and T. Zimmermann (Eds.), The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Semantics.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">On Mar 4, 2022, at 9:24 AM, Martin Haspelmath <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:martin_haspelmath@eva.mpg.de"><martin_haspelmath@eva.mpg.de></a> wrote:
There are of course various ways in which "quantifier" can be defined and in which one could set up subgroups.
For general-comparative linguistics, it's probably not so useful to have a logic-based "(generalized) quantifier" concept where most (or many) NPs are quantifiers. I think we want to have primarily these two types of quantifiers:
– adnominal quantifiers (many, all, two, etc.)
– adverbial quantifiers (often, always, twice, etc.)
And if we want to follow (or take into account) earlier authoritative terminology, then I would take inspiration from these three works:
Gil, David. 2001. Quantifiers. In Haspelmath, Martin & König, Ekkehard & Oesterreicher, Wulf & Raible, Wolfgang (eds.), Language typology and language universals: An international handbook (Volume 2), 1275–1294. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Keenan, Edward L. & Paperno, Denis (eds.). 2012. Handbook of quantifiers in natural language. Dordrecht: Springer.
Paperno, Denis & Keenan, Edward L. (eds.). 2017. Handbook of quantifiers in natural language: Volume II. Cham: Springer.
I find Gil's paper particularly accessible and sensitive to what the languages around the world do. The handbooks edited by Keenan and Paperno give rich exemplification, but the terminology of the general papers is strongly inspired by the logic-based tradition and thus not so transparent for ordinary working linguists.
Incidentally, I did a Twitter poll last year on whether cardinal numerals are considered a subtype on quantifiers, and two thirds thought so: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://twitter.com/haspelmath/status/1429061465332457478">https://twitter.com/haspelmath/status/1429061465332457478</a>
Best,
Martin
Am 04.03.22 um 14:00 schrieb Östen Dahl:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">I think the answer to the question depends on what you want your general-comparative linguistic semantics to look like, in particular on how much you want it to reflect how quantifiers are grouped in individual languages.
Östen
Från: Christian Lehmann <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:christian.lehmann@uni-erfurt.de"><christian.lehmann@uni-erfurt.de></a>
Skickat: den 4 mars 2022 13:02
Till: Östen Dahl <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:oesten@ling.su.se"><oesten@ling.su.se></a>; <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org">lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org</a>
Ämne: Re: Sv: [Lingtyp] types of quantification
Östen, what you mention is apparently a classification from a logical point of view. Accepted.
Is it useful from the point of view of (general-comparative) linguistic semantics to take the "classical" quantifiers of predicate logic out and to group numerals together with "inexact cardinality measures"? (Note that this is a neutral, not a rhetorical question.)
----------------------------------------------------------
Am 04.03.2022 um 12:53 schrieb Östen Dahl:
These should all fall under the notion of “generalized quantifiers” discussed by logicians and formal semanticists, where quantifiers are regarded as denoting sets of sets. See e.g. <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/generalized-quantifiers/">https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/generalized-quantifiers/</a>.
The classification follows naturally from the logical properties of the different quantifiers. (2a) and (2b) are the “classical” quantifiers of predicate logic. (1) indicate exact cardinality measures; (2c) inexact cardinality measures.
• Östen
Från: Lingtyp <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:lingtyp-bounces@listserv.linguistlist.org"><lingtyp-bounces@listserv.linguistlist.org></a> För Christian Lehmann
Skickat: den 4 mars 2022 12:35
Till: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org">lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org</a>
Ämne: [Lingtyp] types of quantification
In some languages, numerals have the same distribution as quantifiers like 'some' or 'many'. From a functional point of view, too, for instance in view of the approximative numerals discussed last week, it makes sense to subsume the use of numerals under quantification. Then one might subdivide the field of quantification roughly as follows:
• Numeral quantification: 'one', 'two' ...
• Non-numeral quantification
• Universal: 'all', 'every'
• Existential: 'some'
• Sizing: 'many', 'several', '(a) few', ....
Two questions:
• Has anything concerning such a classification been published which I should know?
• To the extent that the above is reasonable: Any suggestions for a better terminology?
--
Prof. em. Dr. Christian Lehmann
Rudolfstr. 4
99092 Erfurt
Deutschland
Tel.:
+49/361/2113417
E-Post:
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:christianw_lehmann@arcor.de">christianw_lehmann@arcor.de</a>
Web:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.christianlehmann.eu">https://www.christianlehmann.eu</a>
--
Prof. em. Dr. Christian Lehmann
Rudolfstr. 4
99092 Erfurt
Deutschland
Tel.:
+49/361/2113417
E-Post:
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:christianw_lehmann@arcor.de">christianw_lehmann@arcor.de</a>
Web:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.christianlehmann.eu">https://www.christianlehmann.eu</a>
_______________________________________________
Lingtyp mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org">Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp">http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
--
Martin Haspelmath
Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology
Deutscher Platz 6
D-04103 Leipzig
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.eva.mpg.de/linguistic-and-cultural-evolution/staff/martin-haspelmath/">https://www.eva.mpg.de/linguistic-and-cultural-evolution/staff/martin-haspelmath/</a>
_______________________________________________
Lingtyp mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org">Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp">http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Martin Haspelmath
Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology
Deutscher Platz 6
D-04103 Leipzig
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.eva.mpg.de/linguistic-and-cultural-evolution/staff/martin-haspelmath/">https://www.eva.mpg.de/linguistic-and-cultural-evolution/staff/martin-haspelmath/</a></pre>
</body>
</html>