pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.22236 · v1 · pith:5AZVUNZRnew · submitted 2026-06-20 · 🧮 math.LO

The generalized quantifiers of natural language are predicatively definable

Sean Walsh This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-26 10:38 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🧮 math.LO
keywords generalized quantifiersdomain independenceconservativityHenkin modelsdefinabilityFeferman's Preservation Theoremnatural language semanticspredicative definability
0
0 comments X

The pith

Domain independence and conservativity suffice to make natural language generalized quantifiers predicatively definable.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper explains why generalized quantifiers in natural language are typically definable using only first-order logic or basic cardinality comparisons. It shows that the standard constraints of domain independence and conservativity, when carried over to Henkin models, guarantee definability at the low level of Δ¹₁ or Σ¹₁, often in a bounded way. This follows from Feferman's Preservation Theorem. The result accounts for the fact that these quantifiers do not require more complex definitions.

Core claim

The famous constraints of domain independence and conservativity, when extended to Henkin models, suffice to ensure low-level definability, namely Δ¹₁-definability or at least Σ¹₁-definability; and in most cases this definability can be made to be bounded. This is basically a consequence of Feferman's Preservation Theorem, which Marker has provided a short model-theoretic proof of. Further, we verify that the paradigmatic cardinality quantifiers are indeed Δ¹₁-definable for a reasonable choice of background theory. Finally, in many other cases, we show that this definability can be lowered to first-order definability.

What carries the argument

The extension of domain independence and conservativity to Henkin models, which permits application of Feferman's Preservation Theorem to establish the predicative definability of generalized quantifiers.

If this is right

  • Generalized quantifiers meeting these extended constraints are Δ¹₁-definable or at least Σ¹₁-definable.
  • In most cases the definability is bounded.
  • Cardinality quantifiers are Δ¹₁-definable under a reasonable background theory.
  • In many cases the definability lowers to first-order definability.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same constraints may limit definability complexity in other areas of formal semantics.
  • Henkin models serve as a useful testing ground for applying preservation results to quantifier theory.
  • The result separates the role of these two constraints from stronger assumptions about the background theory.

Load-bearing premise

The constraints of domain independence and conservativity can be extended to Henkin models in a manner that allows direct application of Feferman's Preservation Theorem to the generalized quantifiers.

What would settle it

A generalized quantifier that satisfies the extended domain independence and conservativity conditions in a Henkin model but fails to be Δ¹₁-definable would falsify the claim.

read the original abstract

This paper studies the definability of natural language generalized quantifiers. The semantics of generalized quantifiers are provided by a collection of subsets of the underlying domain. However, the generalized quantifiers appearing in natural language are definable either by first-order quantification or by cardinality notions. This paper provides an explanation for this observed phenomenon. The explanation is that the famous constraints of domain independence and conservativity, when extended to Henkin models, suffice to ensure low-level definability, namely $\Delta^1_1$-definability or at least $\Sigma^1_1$-definability; and in most cases this definability can be made to be bounded. This is basically a consequence of Feferman's Preservation Theorem, which Marker has provided a short model-theoretic proof of. Further, we verify that the paradigmatic cardinality quantifiers are indeed $\Delta^1_1$-definable for a reasonable choice of background theory. Finally, in many other cases, we show that this definability can be lowered to first-order definability.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper claims that the constraints of domain independence and conservativity, when suitably extended to Henkin models, suffice to guarantee that generalized quantifiers of natural language are at most Δ¹₁-definable (or Σ¹₁-definable), often with bounded definability; this is presented as a direct consequence of Feferman's Preservation Theorem (with Marker's model-theoretic proof), together with explicit verification that paradigmatic cardinality quantifiers are Δ¹₁-definable over a reasonable background theory and that first-order definability holds in many further cases.

Significance. If the central derivation holds, the result supplies a model-theoretic explanation, grounded in preservation under extensions, for why natural-language quantifiers exhibit low definability complexity. The paper earns credit for invoking an established theorem with a short model-theoretic proof rather than constructing ad-hoc definability arguments, and for separately confirming the claim for cardinality quantifiers.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract and the statement of the main result: the claim that the natural syntactic extensions of domain independence and conservativity to Henkin models automatically satisfy the preservation hypothesis of Feferman's theorem is not demonstrated. Feferman's theorem requires a specific preservation property under model extensions or submodels; the Henkin versions restrict second-order variables to a proper subclass of subsets, and nothing shows that this restriction preserves the needed property inside arbitrary Henkin structures.
  2. [Abstract] The paragraph beginning 'This is basically a consequence of Feferman's Preservation Theorem': the paper asserts that the definability conclusion follows once the constraints are extended, yet provides no explicit check that the extended constraints entail the exact preservation condition required by the theorem (or by Marker's proof). If the restricted range of sets breaks the preservation step, the Δ¹₁/Σ¹₁ conclusion does not follow from the theorem alone.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states that 'in most cases this definability can be made to be bounded' without indicating which cases are covered or how boundedness is obtained.
  2. [Abstract] The final sentence claims first-order definability 'in many other cases' but does not identify the cases or supply the relevant definitions.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading and for identifying the need for greater explicitness in connecting the Henkin extensions to the preservation hypothesis. We address the points below and will revise the manuscript to include the requested verification.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract and the statement of the main result: the claim that the natural syntactic extensions of domain independence and conservativity to Henkin models automatically satisfy the preservation hypothesis of Feferman's theorem is not demonstrated. Feferman's theorem requires a specific preservation property under model extensions or submodels; the Henkin versions restrict second-order variables to a proper subclass of subsets, and nothing shows that this restriction preserves the needed property inside arbitrary Henkin structures.

    Authors: We agree that an explicit demonstration is required. The manuscript defines the extensions syntactically so that they reduce to the standard notions on full models, but does not separately verify preservation under Henkin extensions. In the revision we will insert a short lemma showing that any quantifier satisfying the Henkin-extended domain independence and conservativity is preserved under the relevant model extensions and submodels when second-order variables range only over the Henkin sets; the argument follows the same model-theoretic steps as Marker’s proof, adapted to the restricted universe of sets. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract] The paragraph beginning 'This is basically a consequence of Feferman's Preservation Theorem': the paper asserts that the definability conclusion follows once the constraints are extended, yet provides no explicit check that the extended constraints entail the exact preservation condition required by the theorem (or by Marker's proof). If the restricted range of sets breaks the preservation step, the Δ¹₁/Σ¹₁ conclusion does not follow from the theorem alone.

    Authors: We accept the criticism. The abstract presents the definability result as following directly, yet omits the intermediate verification that the Henkin versions of the constraints imply the precise preservation property. The revised manuscript will supply this verification in a dedicated paragraph or subsection immediately before invoking Feferman’s theorem, confirming that the restricted second-order range does not interfere with the preservation step. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity; central claim applies external Feferman theorem to extended constraints

full rationale

The paper states its definability result is 'basically a consequence of Feferman's Preservation Theorem' (with Marker's model-theoretic proof) once domain independence and conservativity are extended to Henkin models. Feferman and Marker are external sources with no author overlap indicated. No self-definitional equations, fitted inputs renamed as predictions, or load-bearing self-citations appear in the abstract or described derivation. The application of an independent theorem to the extended notions does not reduce the conclusion to the paper's own inputs by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

Only the abstract is available; no explicit free parameters, invented entities, or additional axioms beyond the invocation of Feferman's theorem are stated.

axioms (1)
  • standard math Feferman's Preservation Theorem holds and applies after extending domain independence and conservativity to Henkin models.
    The abstract states that the definability result is basically a consequence of this theorem.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5699 in / 1274 out tokens · 31843 ms · 2026-06-26T10:38:55.476685+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

66 extracted references

  1. [1]

    1, Princeton University Press, 2014

    Aristotle,Complete works of Aristotle, vol. 1, Princeton University Press, 2014. 13

    2014

  2. [2]

    Ash and J

    C.J. Ash and J. Knight,Computable structures and the hyperarithmetical hierarchy, Elsevier,

  3. [3]

    7, Cambridge University Press, 1975

    Jon Barwise,Admissible sets and structures, Perspectives in Mathematical Logic, vol. 7, Cambridge University Press, 1975. 65

    1975

  4. [4]

    1, 47–80

    ,On branching quantifiers in English, Journal of Philosophical Logic8(1979), no. 1, 47–80. 18

    1979

  5. [5]

    2, 159–219

    Jon Barwise and Robin Cooper,Generalized quantifiers and natural language, Linguistics and Philosophy4(1981), no. 2, 159–219. 1, 23

    1981

  6. [6]

    Jon Barwise and Solomon Feferman,Model-theoretic logics, Perspectives in Mathematical Logic, Springer, 1985. 1, 12

    1985

  7. [7]

    498, Springer, 1975, pp

    Jon Barwise and John Schlipf,On recursively saturated models of arithmetic, Model Theory and Algebra, Lecture Notes in Mathematics, vol. 498, Springer, 1975, pp. 42–55. 27, 28, 17, 61

    1975

  8. [8]

    1, 133–181

    Will Boney,Model theoretic characterizations of large cardinals, Israel Journal of Mathematics 236(2020), no. 1, 133–181. 58

    2020

  9. [9]

    Tim Button and Sean Walsh,Philosophy and model theory, Oxford University Press, 2018. 44, 50

    2018

  10. [10]

    Henri¨ ette de Swart,Adverbs of quantification: A generalized quantifier approach, Garland,

  11. [11]

    2, 357–396

    Walter Dean and Sean Walsh,The prehistory of the subsystems of second-order arithmetic, Review of Symbolic Logic10(2017), no. 2, 357–396. 34 62[40, 276, 317 ff], [21, p. 248, Fact 5], [22, 305-6], [65, 321]. 63At least, it is usually presented as a result about standard models. But it is not hard to see that with minimal modification it can be recast as a...

    2017

  12. [12]

    Heinz-Dieter Ebbinghaus, J¨ org Flum, and Wolfgang Thomas,Mathematical logic, third ed., Graduate Texts in Mathematics, Springer, 2021. 43

    2021

  13. [13]

    Herbert B Enderton,Chapter 4: Second-order logic, A Mathematical Introduction to Logic, Harcourt, second ed., 2001, pp. 282–306. 8, 57

    2001

  14. [14]

    (abstract), 2, 8, 8, 16

    Solomon Feferman,Persistent and invariant formulas for outer extensions, Compositio Math- ematica20(1968), 29–52. (abstract), 2, 8, 8, 16

    1968

  15. [15]

    ,Set-theoretical invariance criteria for logicality, Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 51(2010), no. 1, 3–20. 8

    2010

  16. [16]

    ,Which quantifiers are logical? A combined semantical and inferential criterion, Quantifiers, Quantifiers, and Quantifiers: Themes in Logic, Metaphysics, and Language (Alessandro Torza, ed.), Springer, 2015, pp. 19–30. 8

    2015

  17. [17]

    Solomon Feferman and Georg Kreisel,Persistent and invariant formulas relative to theories of higher order, Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society72(1966), 480–485. 2

    1966

  18. [18]

    4, 301–311

    Fernando Ferreira and Kai F Wehmeier,On the consistency of the∆ 1 1-CA fragment of Frege’s Grundgesetze, Journal of Philosophical Logic31(2002), no. 4, 301–311. 17

    2002

  19. [19]

    2, 219–224

    Melvin Fitting,A tableau proof method admitting the empty domain, Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic12(1971), no. 2, 219–224. 29

    1971

  20. [20]

    Salvatore Florio and Øystein Linnebo,The many and the one: A philosophical study of plural logic, Oxford University Press, 2021. 11

    2021

  21. [21]

    Gamut,Intensional logic and logical grammar, Logic, Language, and Meaning, vol

    L.T.F. Gamut,Intensional logic and logical grammar, Logic, Language, and Meaning, vol. 2, University of Chicago Press, 1991. 7, 21, 26, 35, 62

    1991

  22. [22]

    Michael Glanzberg,Quantifiers, Oxford Handbook of the Philosophy of Language (Ernest Lepore and Barry C Smith, eds.), Oxford University Press, 2006, pp. 794–821. 15, 20, 25, 45, 62, 64

    2006

  23. [23]

    1, 63–98

    Martin Hackl,On the grammar and processing of proportional quantifiers: most versus more than half, Natural Language Semantics17(2009), no. 1, 63–98. 14

    2009

  24. [24]

    3, 197–200

    Theodore Hailperin,Quantification theory and empty individual-domains, The Journal of Symbolic Logic18(1953), no. 3, 197–200. 29

    1953

  25. [25]

    Petr Hajek and Pavel Pudlak,Metamathematics of first-order arithmetic, Springer, 1998. 31

    1998

  26. [26]

    3, 416–449

    Joel David Hamkins,The set-theoretic multiverse, Review of Symbolic Logic5(2012), no. 3, 416–449. 50

    2012

  27. [27]

    Irene Heim and Angelika Kratzer,Semantics in generative grammar, Wiley, 1998. 35

    1998

  28. [28]

    42, Cambridge University Press, 1993

    Wilfrid Hodges,Model theory, Encyclopedia of Mathematics and its Applications, vol. 42, Cambridge University Press, 1993. 30, 17

    1993

  29. [29]

    ter Meulen, ed.), vol

    Jack Hoeksema,Plurality and conjunction, Studies in model theoretic semantics (A. ter Meulen, ed.), vol. 1, De Gruyter, 1983, pp. 63–83. 19

    1983

  30. [30]

    Thomas W Hungerford,Algebra, Springer, 1974. 27

    1974

  31. [31]

    3, 315–334

    Tim Hunter and Jeffrey Lidz,Conservativity and learnability of determiners, Journal of Se- mantics30(2013), no. 3, 315–334. 4

    2013

  32. [32]

    Neil Immerman,Descriptive complexity, Graduate Texts in Computer Science, Springer, 1996. 52, 54

    1996

  33. [33]

    Thomas Jech,Set theory, third ed., Springer, 2007. 31

    2007

  34. [34]

    Alexander S Kechris,Classical descriptive set theory, Springer, 1995. 51, 53

    1995

  35. [35]

    Groenendijk, T.M.V

    Edward Keenan,A boolean approach to semantics, Formal Methods in the Study of Lan- guage (J.A.G. Groenendijk, T.M.V. Janssen, and M.B.J Stokhof, eds.), vol. 2, Mathematisch Centrum, 1981, pp. 343–378. 23

    1981

  36. [36]

    2, de Gruyter, 2011, pp

    ,Quantifiers, Semantics: An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning (Klaus von Heusinger, Claudia Maienborn, and Paul Portner, eds.), vol. 2, de Gruyter, 2011, pp. 1058–1087. 17, 20, 21, 23, 41

    2011

  37. [37]

    Edward L Keenan,The semantics of determiners, The Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory (Shalom Lappin, ed.), Blackwell, first ed., 1996, pp. 41–63. 26, 37, 45

    1996

  38. [38]

    Keenan and Lawrence S

    Edward L. Keenan and Lawrence S. Moss,Generalized quantifiers and the expressive power of natural language, Generalized Quantifiers in Natural Language (Alice ter Meulen and Johan van Benthem, eds.), De Gruyter, 1985, pp. 73–124. 23

    1985

  39. [39]

    Edward L Keenan and Denis Paperno (eds.),Handbook of quantifiers in natural language, 2012 ed., Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy, Springer, 2012, two volumes. 20

    2012

  40. [40]

    Keenan and Jonathan Stavi,A semantic characterization of natural language determiners, Linguistics and Philosophy9(1986), 253–326

    Edward L. Keenan and Jonathan Stavi,A semantic characterization of natural language determiners, Linguistics and Philosophy9(1986), 253–326. 1, 23, 36, 37, 62 NATURAL LANGUAGE QUANTIFIERS ARE PREDICATIVELY DEFINABLE 45

    1986

  41. [41]

    Keenan and Dag Westerst˚ ahl,Generalized quantifiers in linguistics and logic, Handbook of logic and language (1997), 837–893

    Edward L. Keenan and Dag Westerst˚ ahl,Generalized quantifiers in linguistics and logic, Handbook of logic and language (1997), 837–893. 1, 21, 23, 25

    1997

  42. [42]

    Feng-Hsi Liu,Branching quantification and scope independence, Quantifiers, Logic, and Lan- guage (van der Does and Jaap Jan van Eijck, eds.), CSLI Lecture Notes, CSLI, 1996, pp. 255–

    1996

  43. [43]

    19, Cambridge University Press, 1996

    Mar´ ıa Manzano,Extensions of first order logic, Cambridge Tracts in Theoretical Computer Science, vol. 19, Cambridge University Press, 1996. 8, 57

    1996

  44. [44]

    3, 213–216

    David Marker,A model theoretic proof of Feferman’s Preservation Theorem, Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic25(1984), no. 3, 213–216. (abstract), 3, 8, 15, 16, 59

    1984

  45. [45]

    ,Model theory : An introduction, Springer, 2006. 57, 60

    2006

  46. [46]

    4, 387–435

    Robert May,Interpreting logical form, Linguistics and Philosophy12(1989), no. 4, 387–435. 19

    1989

  47. [47]

    Elliott Mendelson,Introduction to mathematical logic, fourth ed., Chapman & Hall, 1997. 49

    1997

  48. [48]

    Andrzej Mostowski,On a generalization of quantifiers, Studies in logic and the foundations of mathematics93(1957), 311–335. 1

    1957

  49. [49]

    Barbara Partee,The starring role of quantifiers in the history of formal semantics, The Logica Yearbook2012(2012), 113–136. 20

    2012

  50. [50]

    1, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 21, 23, 25, 33, 36, 37, 10

    Stanley Peters and Dag Westerst˚ ahl,Quantifiers in language and logic, Oxford University Press, 2008. 1, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 21, 23, 25, 33, 36, 37, 10

    2008

  51. [51]

    Jacopo Romoli,Toward a structural account of conservativity, Proceedings of Sinn und Be- deutung 1414(2010), 373 – 387. 42

    2010

  52. [52]

    1, 28–57

    ,A structural account of conservativity, Semantics - Syntax Interface2(2015), no. 1, 28–57. 42

    2015

  53. [53]

    Simpson,Subsystems of second order arithmetic, Cambridge University Press,

    Stephen G. Simpson,Subsystems of second order arithmetic, Cambridge University Press,

  54. [54]

    Mark Steedman,Taking scope: The natural semantics of quantifiers, MIT Press, 2011. 19

    2011

  55. [55]

    Shane Steinert-Threlkeld and Jakub Szymanik,Ease of learning explains semantic universals, Cognition195(2020), 104076. 4

    2020

  56. [56]

    Wolfgang Sternefeld,Quantifiers, scope, and pseudo-scope, The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Semantics, Wiley, 2020, pp. 1–44. 20, 9, 37

    2020

  57. [57]

    1, 14, 20, 21, 23, 36, 42, 45, 46

    Anna Szabolcsi,Quantification, Cambridge University Press, 2010. 1, 14, 20, 21, 23, 36, 42, 45, 46

    2010

  58. [58]

    96, Springer, 2016

    Jakub Szymanik,Quantifiers and cognition: Logical and computational perspectives, Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy, vol. 96, Springer, 2016. 4, 18, 19, 55, 56

    2016

  59. [59]

    27, 28, 57

    Katrin Tent and Martin Ziegler,A course in model theory, Cambridge University Press, 2012. 27, 28, 57

    2012

  60. [60]

    2, 443–466

    Johan van Benthem,Questions about quantifiers, Journal of Symbolic Logic49(1984), no. 2, 443–466. 8

    1984

  61. [61]

    21, 8, 37, 64

    ,Essays in logical semantics, Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy, Kluwer, 1986. 21, 8, 37, 64

    1986

  62. [62]

    1-2, 139–201

    Kai von Fintel and Lisa Matthewson,Universals in semantics, Linguistic Review25(2008), no. 1-2, 139–201. 9, 41

    2008

  63. [63]

    Sean Walsh,Comparing Hume’s Principle, Basic Law V and Peano Arithmetic, Annals of Pure and Applied Logic163(2012), 1679–1709. 17

    2012

  64. [64]

    3, 277–326

    ,Predicativity, the Russell-Myhill paradox, and Church’s intensional logic, Journal of Philosophical Logic45(2016), no. 3, 277–326. 6, 7, 34

    2016

  65. [65]

    Dag Westerst˚ ahl,Quantifiers in formal and natural languages, Handbook of Philosophical Logic, Springer, second ed., 2007, pp. 223–338. 1, 21, 23, 62, 64

    2007

  66. [66]

    R Zuber and E Keenan,A note on conservativity, Journal of Semantics36(2019), 573–582. 24 Department of Philosophy, University of California, Los Angeles, 390 Portola Plaza, Dodd Hall 321, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1451 Email address:walsh@ucla.edu URL:http://philosophy.ucla.edu/person/sean-walsh/

    2019