Conceptually, conservativity can be understood as saying that the elements of which are not elements of are not relevant for evaluating the truth of the determiner phrase as a whole. For instance, truth of the first sentence above does not depend on which biting non-aardvarks exist.[1][2][3]
Conservativity is significant to semantic theory because there are many logically possible determiners which are not attested as denotations of natural language expressions. For instance, consider the imaginary determiner defined so that is true iff . If there are 50 biting aardvarks, 50 non-biting aardvarks, and millions of non-aardvark biters, will be false but will be true.[1][2][3]
Some potential counterexamples to conservativity have been observed, notably, the English expression "only". This expression has been argued to not be a determiner since it can stack with bona fide determiners and can combine with non-nominal constituents such as verb phrases.[4]
^ abcDag, Westerståhl (2016). "Generalized Quantifiers". In Aloni, Maria; Dekker, Paul (eds.). Cambridge Handbook of Formal Semantics. Cambridge University Press. ISBN978-1-107-02839-5.
^ abcGamut, L.T.F. (1991). Logic, Language and Meaning: Intensional Logic and Logical Grammar. University of Chicago Press. pp. 245–249. ISBN0-226-28088-8.
^ abcBarwise, Jon; Cooper, Robin (1981). "Generalized Quantifiers and Natural Language". Linguistics and Philosophy. 4 (2): 159–219. doi:10.1007/BF00350139.
^von Fintel, Kai (1994). Restrictions on quantifier domains (PhD). University of Massachusetts Amherst.
^Hunter, Tim; Lidz, Jeffrey (2013). "Conservativity and learnability of determiners". Journal of Semantics. 30 (3): 315–334. doi:10.1093/jos/ffs014.
^Romoli, Jacopo (2015). "A structural account of conservativity". Semantics-Syntax Interface. 2 (1).