Generalized quantifier

In formal semantics, a generalized quantifier (GQ) is an expression that denotes a set of sets. This is the standard semantics assigned to quantified noun phrases. For example, the generalized quantifier "every boy" denotes the set of sets of which every boy is a member:
This treatment of quantifiers has been essential in achieving a compositional semantics for sentences containing quantifiers.
Type theory.
A version of type theory is often used to make the semantics of different kinds of expressions explicit. The standard construction defines the set of types recursively as follows:
Given this definition, we have the simple types "e" and "t", but also a countable infinity of complex types, some of which include:
We can now assign types to the words in our sentence above (Every boy sleeps) as follows.
Thus, every denotes a function from a "set" to a function from a set to a truth value. Put differently, it denotes a function from a set to a set of sets. It is that function which for any two sets "A,B", "every"("A")("B")= 1 if and only if formula_15.
Typed lambda calculus.
A useful way to write complex functions is the lambda calculus. For example, one can write the meaning of "sleeps" as the following lambda expression, which is a function from an individual "x" to the proposition that "x sleeps".
Such lambda terms are functions whose domain is what precedes the period, and whose range are the type of thing that follows the period. If "x" is a variable that ranges over elements of formula_4, then the following lambda term denotes the identity function on individuals:
We can now write the meaning of "every" with the following lambda term, where "X,Y" are variables of type formula_6:
If we abbreviate the meaning of "boy" and "sleeps" as ""B" and "S"", respectively, we have that the sentence "every boy sleeps" now means the following:
The expression "every" is a determiner. Combined with a noun, it yields a "generalized quantifier" of type formula_24.
Properties.
Monotonicity.
Monotone increasing GQs.
A "generalized quantifier" GQ is said to be monotone increasing (also called upward entailing) if, for every pair of sets "X" and "Y", the following holds:
The GQ "every boy" is monotone increasing. For example, the set of things that "run fast" is a subset of the set of things that "run". Therefore, the first sentence below entails the second:
Monotone decreasing GQs.
A GQ is said to be monotone decreasing (also called downward entailing) if, for every pair of sets "X" and "Y", the following holds:
An example of a monotone decreasing GQ is "no boy". For this GQ we have that the first sentence below entails the second.
The lambda term for the determiner "no" is the following. It says that the two sets have an empty intersection.
Monotone decreasing GQs are among the expressions that can license a negative polarity item, such as "any". Monotone increasing GQs do not license negative polarity items.
Non-monotone GQs.
A GQ is said to be "non-monotone" if it is neither monotone increasing nor monotone decreasing. An example of such a GQ is "exactly three boys". Neither of the following sentences entails the other.
The first sentence doesn't entail the second. The fact that the number of students that ran is exactly three doesn't entail that each of these students "ran fast", so the number of students that did that can be smaller than 3. Conversely, the second sentence doesn't entail the first. The sentence "exactly three students ran fast" can be true, even though the number of students who merely ran (i.e. not so fast) is greater than 3.
The lambda term for the (complex) determiner "exactly three" is the following. It says that the cardinality of the intersection between the two sets equals 3.
Conservativity.
A determiner D is said to be "conservative" if the following equivalence holds:
For example, the following two sentences are equivalent.
It has been proposed that "all" determinersin every natural languageare conservative. The expression "only" is not conservative. The following two sentences are not equivalent. But it is, in fact not common to analyze "only" as a determiner. Rather, it is standardly treated as a focus-sensitive adverb.