Communications in Humanities Research ISSN: 2753-7072
Home> Volumes> Volume CHR Vol.34> Article
Research Article

Challenging the Monotonicity Universal Theory of Quantifiers: A Cross-Linguistic Analysis of Monomorphemic Quantifiers in English, Japanese, and French

Rui ZhangUniversiti Malaya*

* Corresponding author: [email protected]

Abstract

The paper aims to criticize the monotonicity universal theory of quantifiers to question the universal applicability of the monotonicity theory. A qualitative analysis method was employed, focusing on counterexamples of monomorphemic quantifiers from English, Japanese, and French to critically evaluate the monotonicity universal theory by analyzing these quantifiers’ behavior and examining the implications of findings on the theory’s validity. The significant finding was that not all monomorphemic quantifiers, such as few in English, peu in French, and すこし in Japanese, are monotonic. Therefore, this result contradicted the existing claim that all monomorphemic natural language quantifiers are monotonic (upward monotonic, downward monotonic, or non-monotonic), challenging the universal of the monotonicity theory of quantifiers. The research concludes that the monotonicity universal theory of quantifiers does not universally apply to all monomorphemic natural language quantifiers and underscores the theory’s one-sidedness and imperfections. Hence, this work highlights the need for a broader approach to understanding semantic universal and quantifiers’ behavior in natural languages.

Keywords: semantic universal; monotonicity universal; monotonicity universal theory; quantifier; morphology
Published: May 21, 2024
DOI: 10.54254/2753-7064/34/20240138
Volume: CHR Vol.34
pp. 178-184
Download PDF

References

  1. Barwise, J., & Cooper, R. (1981). Generalized quantifiers and natural language. In Studies in cognitive systems (pp. 241–301).
  2. A semantic Characterization of Natural Language Determiners on JSTOR. (n.d.). www.jstor.org.
  3. Steinert‐Threlkeld, S., & Szymanik, J. (2019). Learnability and semantic universal. Semantics and Pragmatics, 12(4), 1–39.
  4. Majid, A. (2014). Comparing lexicons cross-linguistically. In Oxford University Press eBooks.
  5. Kemp, C., Xu, Y., & Regier, T. (2018). Semantic typology and efficient communication. Annual Review of Linguistics, 4(1), 109–128.
  6. Matthewson, L. (2016). Modality. In Cambridge University Press eBooks (pp. 525–559).
  7. Roelofsen, F., & Uegaki, W. (2021). Searching for a universal constraint on the possible denotations of clause-embedding predicates. Semantics and Linguistic Theory, 30, 542.
  8. Van de Pol, I., Lodder, P., van Maanen, L., Steinert-Threlkeld, S., & Szymanik, J. (2021). Quantifiers satisfying semantic universal are simpler. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 43.
  9. Steinert‐Threlkeld, S. (2021). Quantifiers in natural language: efficient communication and degrees of semantic universal. Entropy, 23(10), 1335.
  10. Van De Pol, I., Lodder, P., Van Maanen, L., Steinert‐Threlkeld, S., & Szymanik, J. (2023). Quantifiers satisfying semantic universal have shorter minimal description length. Cognition, 232, 105150.
  11. Ben-Avi, G., & Winter, Y. (2004). A characterization of monotonicity with collective quantifiers. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science, 53, 21–33.
  12. Sippel, J., & Szymanik, J. (2018). Monotonicity and the Complexity of Reasoning with Quantifiers. Cognitive Science.
  13. Geurts, B. (2003). Reasoning with quantifiers. Cognition, 86(3), 223–251.
  14. Carcassi, F., Steinert‐Threlkeld, S., & Szymanik, J. (2021). Monotone quantifiers emerge via iterated learning. Cognitive Science, 45(8).
  15. Aronoff, M., & Fudeman, K. (2022). What is Morphology? John Wiley & Sons.