We discuss the thesis formulated by Hintikka (1973) that certain natural language sentences require non-linear quantification to express their meaning. We investigate sentences with combinations of quantifiers similar to Hintikka's examples and propose a novel alternative reading expressible by linear formulae. This interpretation is based on linguistic and logical observations. We report on our experiments showing that people tend to interpret sentences similar to Hintikka sentence in a way consistent with our interpretation.

We consider collective quantification in natural language. For many years the common strategy in formalizing collective quantification has been to define the meanings of collective determiners, quantifying over collections, using certain type-shifting operations. These type-shifting operations, i.e., lifts, define the collective interpretations of determiners systematically from the standard meanings of quantifiers. All the lifts considered in the literature turn out to be definable in second-order logic. We argue that second-order definable quantifiers are probably not expressive enough to formalize all collective (...) quantification in natural language. (shrink)

We consider the notion of everyday language. We claim that everyday language is semantically bounded by the properties expressible in the existential fragment of second–order logic. Two arguments for this thesis are formulated. Firstly, we show that so–called Barwise's test of negation normality works properly only when assuming our main thesis. Secondly, we discuss the argument from practical computability for finite universes. Everyday language sentences are directly or indirectly verifiable. We show that in both cases they are bounded by second–order (...) existential properties. Moreover, there are known examples of everyday language sentences which are the most difficult in this class (NPTIME–complete). (shrink)

Propositions are the contents of declaratives, and the objects of attitudes. For instance, if Ann asserts that it is raining, and if Ben believes what Ann asserts, then it seems as if one and the same proposition is the content of Ann’s assertion, and the object of Ben’s belief. But—on the orthodox semantic framework detailed in Kaplan 1989a—the content of what Ann asserts is inspecific with respect to such features as the world and time of the rainfall, and is only (...) true or false relative to an index specifying these further features. Yet the object of what Ben believes seems to concern a specific world and time, and does not seem to require an index to assess for truth. (shrink)

We study the computational complexity of reciprocal sentences with quantified antecedents. We observe a computational dichotomy between different interpretations of reciprocity, and shed some light on the status of the so-called Strong Meaning Hypothesis.