Documentation

Linglib.Theories.Semantics.Composition.QuantifierComposition

Quantifier Composition via Predicate Abstraction #

Demonstrates that interp composes quantificational sentences end-to-end: lexicon → syntax tree (with QR traces and binders) → truth conditions.

H&K Pipeline (@cite{heim-kratzer-1998} Ch. 5) #

After Quantifier Raising moves a DP to a higher position, it leaves a trace tₙ and creates a binder node n. Predicate Abstraction (PA) converts the binder + body into λx. ⟦body⟧^{g[n↦x]}, producing a predicate that the raised quantifier takes as its scope argument.

"Every student sleeps" after QR:

[S [DP [D every] [N student]] [1 [S [t₁] [VP sleeps]]]]

Evaluated as:

  1. ⟦t₁⟧^g = g(1) (Traces rule)
  2. ⟦sleeps⟧ = sleeps' (TN)
  3. ⟦[t₁ sleeps]⟧^g = sleeps'(g(1)) (FA)
  4. ⟦[1 [t₁ sleeps]]⟧^g = λx. sleeps'(x) (PA)
  5. ⟦every student⟧ = every'(student') (FA)
  6. ⟦S⟧ = every'(student')(λx. sleeps'(x)) (FA)

Scope Ambiguity #

"Everybody loves somebody" yields two readings from two QR structures:

The two trees differ only in which quantifier is raised higher.

Note on Prop-valued .t #

With interpTy .t = Prop, the compositional semantics produces Prop-valued truth conditions directly. Theorems verify these truth conditions at the Prop level rather than via evalTree (which requires a blanket Decidable instance for ∀ (p : Prop), Decidable p).

QR tree: [S [DP every student] [1 [S t₁ sleeps]]]

Equations
  • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For

    QR tree: [S [DP some student] [1 [S t₁ sleeps]]]

    Equations
    • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
    Instances For

      Two QR structures yield two scope readings. The trees differ only in which quantifier occupies the higher position.

      Surface scope (∀>∃):

      [S [DP every person] [1 [S [DP some person] [2 [S t₁ [VP sees t₂]]]]]]
      

      ∀x[person(x) → ∃y[person(y) ∧ sees(x,y)]]

      Equations
      • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
      Instances For

        Inverse scope (∃>∀):

        [S [DP some person] [2 [S [DP every person] [1 [S t₁ [VP sees t₂]]]]]]
        

        ∃y[person(y) ∧ ∀x[person(x) → sees(x,y)]]

        Equations
        • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
        Instances For
          @[reducible, inline]

          Surface scope Prop.

          Equations
          • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
          Instances For
            @[reducible, inline]

            Inverse scope Prop.

            Equations
            • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
            Instances For

              Surface scope is true in the toy model. (John sees Mary and Mary sees John — each person sees some person.)

              Inverse scope is false. (No single person is seen by everyone — John doesn't see John, Mary doesn't see Mary.)

              The two scope readings differ: proof of genuine ambiguity.

              The same QR tree built as Tree Cat String — carrying real UD-grounded categories on every node. interp ignores the categories and produces identical truth conditions to the category-free Tree Unit String version.

              QR tree with UD categories: [S [DP [Det every] [N student]] [1 [S [t₁:NP] [VP sleeps]]]]

              Equations
              • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
              Instances For