Construct · 3 fields · 6 citations
One name. Different field. Different construct. One map.
● jingle · one word, three constructs Nearest construct by meaningformcompare the meaningsEvery construct on the map is compared with every other by the meaning of its definitions, and the closest one is surfaced here. The nearest construct to expressivity is form.
Hold this as a prompt, not a verdict. Two constructs sitting close in meaning is a reason to read them side by side and decide for yourself whether they are one idea under two names. It is not proof that they are. Compare the meanings in the Collider.
Spokes are fields; dashed arcs are shared lineage. Tap a field for its definition, unit, and measures.
Drag to watch the word get claimed. Each field appears at the publication date of the earliest source cited for it. Tap a year to see which.
In genetics, expressivity is how strongly a trait appears in an individual who carries the responsible variant, so two people with the same variant can show it mildly or severely. Vogt introduced the term Expressivität in 1926, alongside Penetranz (penetrance), to separate whether a gene shows at all from how much it shows, and Zlotogora's 2003 review Penetrance and expressivity in the molecular age restated the distinction for gene-level data. Variable expressivity names the range of severity seen across carriers of one genotype. This referent is a biological quantity measured in living organisms, not a property of a formal language or a feeling carried in speech.[1][2]
In linguistics, expressivity is the part of an utterance that conveys the speaker's own attitude, feeling, or stance rather than plain facts about the world. Bühler's 1934 Sprachtheorie placed this expressive function (Ausdruck) as one of three jobs language does, next to appeal to the listener and representation of things, and Jakobson's 1960 essay Linguistics and Poetics recast it as the emotive function centered on the first person. What counts here is how speech signals an inner state, for example through tone, word choice, or interjection. This referent is a communicative property of human language, not the severity of an inherited trait or the reach of a formal system.[3][4]
In logic and computer science, expressivity (expressive power) is the range of things a formal language or model can state or compute, so a more expressive system can capture properties that a weaker one cannot. Lindström's 1969 paper On Extensions of Elementary Logic characterized first-order logic by the limits of its expressive power, and Felleisen's 1991 On the expressive power of programming languages gave a formal way to compare what one language can express against another. Comparing systems this way is central to descriptive complexity, which ranks logics by the computational problems they can define. This referent is a formal property of languages and calculi, not a biological quantity or a feeling carried in speech.[5][6]
Next
See how expressivity sits against neighbouring constructs in the Collider, or export every reference on this page in one click.
Open in ColliderExport BibTeXReport this collisionCited on this page?
If your work is cited behind one of these entries, you know better than we do whether we captured the meaning right. Confirm it, suggest an edit, or dispute it, and your name goes on the entry as an author who has checked it, linked to your ORCID.
Claim your construct