Societas Linguistica Europaea
2024 Workshop proposal

 Precision and approximation in language

57th Annual Meeting of the Societas Linguistica Europaea
21 – 24 August 2024
University of Helsinki

Conveners

Hava Bat-Zeev Shyldkrot (Tel Aviv University) & Silvia Adler (Bar-Ilan University)

Keywords: Precision, accuracy, approximation, vagueness, quantification, measurement, counting.

Description of thematic workshop

Precision and approximation are two notions fundamental to research in natural and exact sciences (Bennett, 1987). Precision refers, grosso modo, to the consistency of results, while approximation refers to the representation of things in ways that might be close to the truth. Exact sciences also distinguish between precision and accuracy: if the first is interested in how reproducible measurements are, the second raises the question of how close a measurement is to a known or true value. But these notions are no less essential to linguistic analysis. In language, whereas the difference between precision and approximation is usually intuitively and easily discernible, the difference between precision and accuracy is often blurred or neutralized (Bat-Zeev Shyldkrot, Adler, Asnes 2014, 2016). Thus, in many languages, the terms “precise” and “accurate” will be perceived as synonyms in contexts such as the measurements are precise/accurate. Precision and approximation are key concepts in the study of many linguistic phenomena, among them, quantifiers (e.g. some/ many students participated in the demonstrations). See: Horn, 1972; Glöckner & Knoll, 2001; Clark &Grossman, 2007; Krifka, 2007; Breheny, 2008; Kennedy, 2013; Rothstein 2013); comparison, scalarity, degree and intensity (e.g. Taylor Swift’s “You were bigger than the whole sky/ You were more than just a short time”. See: Bolinger, 1972; Doetjes, 1997; Carston, 1998; Schwarzschild &Wilkinson, 2002; Whittaker, 2002; Doetjes, 2004; Kennedy and McNally, 2005; Ariel, 2003, 2006; Geurts & Nouwen, 2007; Mihatsch 2010; Kennedy 2011). Furthermore, Lakoff (1973) and Wierzbicka (1986) have demonstrated the extent to which precision and approximation are essential for the understanding of discourse markers – often reflecting subjectivity. Precision and approximation also prove to be challenging when they interact with temporal, spatial or other abstract concepts such as perceptions (e.g. around the yard/ around seven o’clock/ gifts around 50$. See: Juker, Smith & Ludge, 2003; Panizza, Chierchia & Clifton, 2009). We propose that approximation and precision provide an appropriate framework for the understanding of an array of phenomena usually examined under dissociated categories.

We welcome papers in all areas of linguistics, both in diachronic and synchronic perspectives. Topics include, but are not limited to, the following: quantification, measurement and counting; scalarity, degree, intensity and comparisons; discourse markers, connectors and hedges; areas of convergence and overlap between precision and approximation (e.g.:rather, meaning “to a slight degree” and “more exactly”); approximation and derogative entailment (e.g. results are approximate).

Submission instructions:

We invite proposals for 20-minute talks concerning the notions of precision and approximation, their definition, their semantic, pragmatic, morphological or syntactic realizations in any language, their interaction with related phenomena, whether it be a cross-linguistic study or one focusing on a particular language. All theoretical frameworks are welcome.

Preliminary abstracts (300 words, as DOC file) should be sent to the workshop organizers (hbzs22@tauex.tau.ac.il; silvia.adler@biu.ac.il) by November 15, 2023. If the workshop proposal is successful, prospective presenters will be asked to submit a 500 word abstract directly to SLE by 15 January 2024.

References

Ariel, M., 2003. “Does most mean ‘more than half’?” BLS 29, 17-30.

Ariel, M., 2004. “Most”, Language 8.4, 658-706.

Ariel, M., 2006. “A ‘just that’ lexical meaning for most” in von Heusinger, K. & Turner, K.(eds.). Where semantics meets pragmatics, Current Research in Semantics/ Pragmatics interface 16, Issy les Moulineaux: Elsevier, 49-94.

Bat-Zeev Shyldkrot, H., Adler, S.  & Asnes, M. (eds.).  2014. Précis et imprécis:  Etude  sur l’approximation et la précision, Paris: Champion.

Bat-Zeev Shyldkrot, H., Adler, S. &Asnes, M. (eds.). 2016.Nouveaux regards sur l’approximation et la précision. Paris: Champion.

Bennett, S.W., 1987. “Approximation in Mathematical Domains”, in Proceedings of the tenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Los Altos, CA.

Bolinger, D., 1972. Degree Words. The Hague: Mouton.

Breheny, R., 2008. “A new look at the semantics and pragmatics of numerically quantified noun phrases”. Journal of Semantics 25, 93–139.

Carston, R., 1998. “Informativeness, relevance and scalar implicature”, in Carston, R.& Uchida, S. (eds.). Relevance theory: Applications and interpretations, Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 179-236.

Clark, R., Grossman M., 2007. “Number sense and quantifier interpretation”, Topoi 26, 51–62.

Doetjes, J., 1997. Quantifiers and Selection: On the Distribution of Quantifying Expressions in French, Dutch and English, Holland Institute of Generative Linguistics.

Doetjes, J., 2004. “Degree Quantifiers”, in Corblin, F. et de Swart, H. (eds.). Handbook of French Semantics, Stanford: CSLI publications, 83-98.

Geurts, B. & Nouwen, R., 2007. “At least et al.: The semantics of scalar modifiers”. Language 83, 533–559.

Glöckner, I. & Knoll, A., 2001. “Fuzzy quantifiers: A Natural Language Technique for Data Fusion”, in Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Information Fusion (Fusion 2001).

Horn, L. R., 1972. On the semantic properties of logical operators in English, Ph.D. dissertation, University of California.

Juker, A.H., Smith, S.W. and Ludge, T., 2003. “Interactive aspects of vagueness in conversation”, Journal of Pragmatics35, 1737-1769.

Kennedy, Ch., 2011. “Vagueness and Comparison”, in Egre, P., Klinedinst, N., Vagueness and Language Use. Palgrave MacMillan.

Kennedy, Ch., 2013. “A scalar semantics for scalar readings of number words”. In From grammar to meaning: The spontaneous logicality of language, Caponigro, I. & Cecchetto, C. (eds.), Cambridge University Press, 172– 200.

Kennedy, Ch. & McNally, L. 2005. “Scale Structure, Degree Modification, and the Semantics of Gradable Predicates”. Language 81.2, 345-381.

Krifka, M., 2007. “Approximate interpretation of number words: A case for strategic communication”. Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Philosophische Fakultät II. Lakoff,  G.,  1973.  “Hedges:  a  study  in  meaning  criteria  and  the  logic  of  fuzzy  concepts”.  Journal of Philosophical Logic 2, 458–508.

Langacker, R., 1987, 1991. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vols. I, II, Stanford University Press.

Mihatsch, W., 2010. “Les approximateurs quantitatifs entre scalarité et non-scalarité”, in Hadermann, P., Pierrard, M. & Van Raemdonck, D. (eds.). Langue française 165, 125-153.

Panizza, D., Chierchia, G. and Clifton, C. Jr., 2009. “On the role of entailment patterns and scalar implicatures in the processing of numerals”, Journal of Memory and Language (online), vol. 61.4, 503-518.

Rothstein, S., 2013, “Numbers are precise in counting and often approximate in measuring comparatives”, Approximation and Precision III, Tel Aviv and Bar Ilan Universities, June 16-17.

Schwarzschild, R. & Wilkinson, K. 2002. “Quantifiers in comparatives: A semantics of degree based on intervals”. Natural Language Semantics 10, 1–41.

Talmy, L., 1988. “The relation of grammar to cognition”, in Rudzka-Ostyn, B. (ed.). Topics in Cognitive Linguistics, Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Whittaker, S., 2002. La notion de gradation. Application aux adjectifs. Bern : Peter Lang.

Wierzbicka, A., 1986. “Precision in Vagueness: The Semantics of English approximatives”.  Journal of Pragmatics 10, 597-614.