3 ms·

In natural language, usage is prior to grammar, and in this case, actual usage doesn't reflect the apparent rule. If you want to look up research on this parti

by pxc 3y ago

In natural language, usage is prior to grammar, and in this case, actual usage doesn't reflect the apparent rule. If you want to look up research on this particular rule and its observance (or not) the term is 'scopal isomorphism', where the isomorphism is between the scopes of the quantifiers in the surface structure and those in the logical form. That said, this is a pet peeve for me, too. Strikes my ear as wrong every single time I hear it, and drives me nuts.

jjtheblunt 3y ago
i'd never seen the term "scopal isomorphism" : thanks! and yeah, i hear it all the time and it is like fingernails on a chalkboard.
- pxc 3y ago
  I found the terms when I went on an angry research binge in search of a name for my preference and frustration. What I discovered, in addition to the name, was an interesting twist: Scopal ambiguity and isomorphic readings have played an interesting role in research on linguistic development for a long time. It turns out that little, little kids also strongly prefer isomorphic readings of statements involving quantifiers like this. But as they grow up, the 'inverse scope reading becomes accessible' to them— they gain the ability to correctly interpret the common way of phrasing these things which strikes you and me as 'wrong'. I have a lot of thoughts about this, but I've never really followed up on that initial research or asked a linguist what they think all that's about. I think for me, my preference for isomorphic readings and phrasings definitely relates to at least these two things: 1. I'm neurodivergent and part of what that means for me is that context is difficult, and I tend to prefer explicit syntax over reliance on context. 2. I work in a profession where (a) I deal with machines/languages that (obviously) always expect scopal isomorphism and (b) we often care about a quantification (all X are not Y) that is rarely actually intended in natural language. The more I revisit it, the more curious I get about this difference in handling 'ambiguity' (it doesn't feel ambiguous to me at all! lol) and where it comes from. :) If you wanna crawl into this rabbit hole, have at it: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C3&q=scopal+ambiguity+isomorphism+inverse https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C3&q=scop...

by pxc 3y ago

jjtheblunt 3y ago

i'd never seen the term "scopal isomorphism" : thanks! and yeah, i hear it all the time and it is like fingernails on a chalkboard.

pxc 3y ago
I found the terms when I went on an angry research binge in search of a name for my preference and frustration. What I discovered, in addition to the name, was an interesting twist: Scopal ambiguity and isomorphic readings have played an interesting role in research on linguistic development for a long time. It turns out that little, little kids also strongly prefer isomorphic readings of statements involving quantifiers like this. But as they grow up, the 'inverse scope reading becomes accessible' to them— they gain the ability to correctly interpret the common way of phrasing these things which strikes you and me as 'wrong'. I have a lot of thoughts about this, but I've never really followed up on that initial research or asked a linguist what they think all that's about. I think for me, my preference for isomorphic readings and phrasings definitely relates to at least these two things: 1. I'm neurodivergent and part of what that means for me is that context is difficult, and I tend to prefer explicit syntax over reliance on context. 2. I work in a profession where (a) I deal with machines/languages that (obviously) always expect scopal isomorphism and (b) we often care about a quantification (all X are not Y) that is rarely actually intended in natural language. The more I revisit it, the more curious I get about this difference in handling 'ambiguity' (it doesn't feel ambiguous to me at all! lol) and where it comes from. :) If you wanna crawl into this rabbit hole, have at it: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C3&q=scopal+ambiguity+isomorphism+inverse https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C3&q=scop...