About this topic
Summary

Generalized quantifier theory studies the semantics of quantifier expressions, like, `every’, `some’, `most’, ‘infinitely many’, `uncountably many’, etc. The classical version was developed in the 1980s, at the interface of linguistics, mathematics and philosophy. In logic generalized quantifier are often defined as classes of models closed on isomorphism (topic neutral). For instance, quantifier “infinitely many” may be defined as a class of all infinite models. Equivalently, in linguistics generalized quantifiers are formally treated as relations between subset of the universe. For instance, in sentence `Most of the students are smart”, quantifier `most’ is a binary relation between the set of students and the set of smart people. The sentence is true if and only if the cardinality of the set of smart students is greater than the cardinality of the set of students who are not smart. 

Key works

Gottlob Frege was one of the major figures in forming the modern concept of quantification. In Begriffsschrift (1879) he made a distinction between bound and free variables and treated quantifiers as well-defined, denoting entities. However, historically speaking the notion of a generalized quantifier was formulated for the first time in a seminal paper of Andrzej Mostowski 1957, where the notions of existential and universal quantification were extended to the concept of a monadic generalized quantifier binding one variable in one formula, and later this was generalized to arbitrary types by Per Lindström 1966. Soon it was realized by Richard Montague 1970 that the notion can be used to model the denotations of noun phrases in natural language. Jon Barwise and Robin Cooper (1981) introduced the apparatus of generalized quantifiers as a standard semantic toolbox and started the rigorous study of their properties from the linguistic perspective.

Introductions

For an encyclopedia article see Westerståhl 2008. For a survey of classical results we recommend: Keenan & Westerstahl 2011. Peters & Westerståhl 2006 is a thorough handbook treatment focused on definability questions and their applications in model theory and linguistics. For more computer science results consult, e.g., Makowsky & Pnueli 1995 . For a psychological perspective, see, e.g. Moxey & Sanford 1993. For a combination of formal work and cognitive science perspective, see, e.g., Szymanik 2009.

  Show all references
Related categories
Siblings:See also:
167 found
Search inside:
(import / add options)   Sort by:
1 — 50 / 167
  1. Varol Akman (1998). Book Review--Jaap Van der Does and Jan Van Eijk, Eds., Quantifiers, Logic, and Language. [REVIEW] Philosophical Explorations.
    This is a review of Quantifiers, Logic, and Language, edited by Jaap van der Does and Jan van Eijk, published by CSLI (Center for the Study of Language and Information) Publications in 1996.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  2. Natasha Alechina (1995). On a Decidable Generalized Quantifier Logic Corresponding to a Decidable Fragment of First-Order Logic. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 4 (3):177-189.
    Van Lambalgen (1990) proposed a translation from a language containing a generalized quantifierQ into a first-order language enriched with a family of predicatesR i, for every arityi (or an infinitary predicateR) which takesQxg(x, y1,..., yn) to x(R(x, y1,..., y1) (x,y1,...,yn)) (y 1,...,yn are precisely the free variables ofQx). The logic ofQ (without ordinary quantifiers) corresponds therefore to the fragment of first-order logic which contains only specially restricted quantification. We prove that it is decidable using the method of analytic tableaux. Related (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  3. Natasha Alechina & Michiel van Lambalgen (1996). Generalized Quantification as Substructural Logic. Journal of Symbolic Logic 61 (3):1006-1044.
    We show how sequent calculi for some generalized quantifiers can be obtained by generalizing the Herbrand approach to ordinary first order proof theory. Typical of the Herbrand approach, as compared to plain sequent calculus, is increased control over relations of dependence between variables. In the case of generalized quantifiers, explicit attention to relations of dependence becomes indispensible for setting up proof systems. It is shown that this can be done by turning variables into structured objects, governed by various types of (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  4. Alon Altman, Ya'Acov Peterzil & Yoad Winter (2005). Scope Dominance with Upward Monotone Quantifiers. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 14 (4):445-455.
    We give a complete characterization of the class of upward monotone generalized quantifiers Q1 and Q2 over countable domains that satisfy the scheme Q1 x Q2 y φ → Q2 y Q1 x φ. This generalizes the characterization of such quantifiers over finite domains, according to which the scheme holds iff Q1 is ∃ or Q2 is ∀ (excluding trivial cases). Our result shows that in infinite domains, there are more general types of quantifiers that support these entailments.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  5. J. Atlas (1996). 'Only' Noun Phrases, Pseudo-Negative Generalized Quantifiers, Negative Polarity Items, and Monotonicity. Journal of Semantics 13 (4):265-328.
    The theory of Generalized Quantifiers has facilitated progress in the study of negation in natural language. In particular it has permitted the formulation of a DeMorgan taxonomy of logical strength of negative Noun Phrases (Zwarts 1996a,b). It has permitted the formulation of broad semantical generalizations to explain grammatical phenomena, e.g. the distribution of Negative Polarity Items (Ladusaw 1980; Linebarger 1981, 1987, 1991; Hoeksema 1986, 1995; Zwarts 1996a,b; Horn 1992, 1996b). In the midst of this theorizing Jaap Hoepelman invited me to (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  6. Gilad B. Avi & Yoad Winter (2003). Monotonicity and Collective Quantification. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 12 (2):127--151.
    Remove from this list |
    Translate to English
    |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  7. Kent Bach (1982). Semantic Nonspecificity and Mixed Quantifiers. Linguistics and Philosophy 4 (4):593 - 605.
  8. John T. Baldwin & Douglas E. Miller (1982). Some Contributions to Definability Theory for Languages with Generalized Quantifiers. Journal of Symbolic Logic 47 (3):572-586.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  9. Jon Barwise (1979). On Branching Quantifiers in English. Journal of Philosophical Logic 8 (1):47 - 80.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  10. Jon Barwise & Robin Cooper (1981). Generalized Quantifiers and Natural Language. Linguistics and Philosophy 4 (2):159--219.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (8 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  11. Andreas Baudisch (1984). Magidor-Malitz Quantifiers in Modules. Journal of Symbolic Logic 49 (1):1-8.
    We prove the elimination of Magidor-Malitz quantifiers for R-modules relative to certain Q 2 α -core sentences and positive primitive formulas. For complete extensions of the elementary theory of R-modules it follows that all Ramsey quantifiers (ℵ 0 -interpretation) are eliminable. By a result of Baldwin and Kueker [1] this implies that there is no R-module having the finite cover property.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  12. Andreas Baudisch (ed.) (1980). Decidability and Generalized Quantifiers. Akademie-Verlag.
    Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  13. Dorit Ben Shalom (2003). One Connection Between Standard Invariance Conditions on Modal Formulas and Generalized Quantifiers. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 12 (1):47-52.
    The language of standard propositional modal logic has one operator (? or ?), that can be thought of as being determined by the quantifiers ? or ?, respectively: for example, a formula of the form ?F is true at a point s just in case all the immediate successors of s verify F.This paper uses a propositional modal language with one operator determined by a generalized quantifier to discuss a simple connection between standard invariance conditions on modal formulas and generalized (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  14. Gilad Ben-Avi & Yoad Winter (2004). Scope Dominance with Monotone Quantifiers Over Finite Domains. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 13 (4):385-402.
    We characterize pairs of monotone generalized quantifiers Q1 and Q2 over finite domains that give rise to an entailment relation between their two relative scope construals. This relation between quantifiers, which is referred to as scope dominance, is used for identifying entailment relations between the two scopal interpretations of simple sentences of the form NP1–V–NP2. Simple numerical or set-theoretical considerations that follow from our main result are used for characterizing such relations. The variety of examples in which they hold are (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  15. Gilad Ben-Avi & Yoad Winter (2003). Monotonicity and Collective Quantification. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 12 (2):127-151.
    This article studies the monotonicity behavior of plural determinersthat quantify over collections. Following previous work, we describe thecollective interpretation of determiners such as all, some andmost using generalized quantifiers of a higher type that areobtained systematically by applying a type shifting operator to thestandard meanings of determiners in Generalized Quantifier Theory. Twoprocesses of counting and existential quantification thatappear with plural quantifiers are unified into a single determinerfitting operator, which, unlike previous proposals, both capturesexistential quantification with plural determiners and respects theirmonotonicity (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  16. Hanoch Ben-Yami (2014). Bare Quantifiers? Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 95 (2):175-188.
    In a series of publications I have claimed that by contrast to standard formal languages, quantifiers in natural language combine with a general term to form a quantified argument, in which the general term's role is to determine the domain or plurality over which the quantifier ranges. In a recent paper Zoltán Gendler Szabó tried to provide a counterexample to this analysis and derived from it various conclusions concerning quantification in natural language, claiming it is often ‘bare’. I show that (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  17. Hanoch Ben-Yami (2012). Response to Westerstahl. Logique Et Analyse 55 (217):47-55.
    Remove from this list |
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  18. Hanoch Ben-Yami (2009). Generalized Quantifiers, and Beyond. Logique Et Analyse (208):309-326.
    I show that the contemporary dominant analysis of natural language quantifiers that are one-place determiners by means of binary generalized quantifiers has failed to explain why they are, according to it, conservative. I then present an alternative, Geachean analysis, according to which common nouns in the grammatical subject position are plural logical subject-terms, and show how it does explain that fact and other features of natural language quantification.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  19. Johan Benthem (1989). Polyadic Quantifiers. Linguistics and Philosophy 12 (4):437 - 464.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  20. Johan Van Benthem (1984). Questions About Quantifiers. Journal of Symbolic Logic 49 (2):443 - 466.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  21. Johan Van Benthem, Sujata Ghosh & Fenrong Liu (2008). Modelling Simultaneous Games in Dynamic Logic. Synthese 165 (2):247 - 268.
    We make a proposal for formalizing simultaneous games at the abstraction level of player's powers, combining ideas from dynamic logic of sequential games and concurrent dynamic logic. We prove completeness for a new system of 'concurrent game logic' CDGL with respect to finite non-determined games. We also show how this system raises new mathematical issues, and throws light on branching quantifiers and independence-friendly evaluation games for first-order logic.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  22. Reinhard Blutner (1993). Dynamic Generalized Quantifiers and Existential Sentences in Natural Languages. Journal of Semantics 10 (1):33-64.
    The central topic to be discussed in this paper is the definiteness restriction in there-insertion contexts. Various attempts to explain this definiteness restriction using the standard algebraic framework are discussed (Barwise & Cooper 1981; Keenan 1978; Milsark 1974; Higginbortham 1987; Lappin 1988) and the shortcomings of these attempts are demonstrated. Finally, a new approach to the interpretation of existential there be-sentences is developed within the framework of Groenendijk & Stokhof's (1990) Dynamic Montague Grammar. This approach makes use of a variant (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  23. Oliver Bott, Fabian Schlotterbeck & Jakub Szymanik (2011). Tractable Versus Intractable Reciprocal Sentences. In J. Bos & S. Pulman (eds.), Proceedings of the International Conference on Computational Semantics 9.
    In three experiments, we investigated the computational complexity of German reciprocal sentences with different quantificational antecedents. Building upon the tractable cognition thesis (van Rooij, 2008) and its application to the verification of quantifiers (Szymanik, 2010) we predicted complexity differences among these sentences. Reciprocals with all-antecedents are expected to preferably receive a strong interpretation (Dalrymple et al., 1998), but reciprocals with proportional or numerical quantifier antecedents should be interpreted weakly. Experiment 1, where participants completed pictures according to their preferred interpretation, provides (...)
    Remove from this list |
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  24. Mark Brown (1984). Generalized Quantifiers and the Square of Opposition. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 25 (4):303-322.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  25. Robin Clark (2011). Generalized Quantifiers and Number Sense. Philosophy Compass 6 (9):611-621.
    Generalized quantifiers are functions from pairs of properties to truth-values; these functions can be used to interpret natural language quantifiers. The space of such functions is vast and a great deal of research has sought to find natural constraints on the functions that interpret determiners and create quantifiers. These constraints have demonstrated that quantifiers rest on number and number sense. In the first part of the paper, we turn to developing this argument. In the remainder, we report on work in (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  26. Robin Clark (2010). On the Learnability of Quantifiers. In Johan Van Benthem & Alice Ter Meulen (eds.), Handbook of Logic and Language, 2nd Edition.
    Remove from this list |
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  27. Robin Clark & Murray Grossman (2007). Number Sense and Quantifier Interpretation. Topoi 26 (1):51--62.
    We consider connections between number sense—the ability to judge number—and the interpretation of natural language quantifiers. In particular, we present empirical evidence concerning the neuroanatomical underpinnings of number sense and quantifier interpretation. We show, further, that impairment of number sense in patients can result in the impairment of the ability to interpret sentences containing quantifiers. This result demonstrates that number sense supports some aspects of the language faculty.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  28. Robin Cooper (1996). The Role of Situations in Generalized Quantifiers. In Shalom Lappin (ed.), The Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory. Blackwell. 65--86.
    Remove from this list | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  29. Mary Dalrymple, Makoto Kanazawa, Yookyung Kim, Sam McHombo & Stanley Peters (1998). Reciprocal Expressions and the Concept of Reciprocity. Linguistics and Philosophy 21 (2):159-210.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  30. Paul Dekker (2003). Meanwhile, Within the Frege Boundary. Linguistics and Philosophy 26 (5):547-556.
    In this paper, I want to contribute to understanding and improving on Keenan'sintriguing equivalence result about reducible type quantifiers (Keenan, 1992).I give an alternative proof of his result which generalizes to type quantifiers, andI show how the reduction of a reducible type quantifier to (the composition of) ntype quantifiers can be effected.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (8 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  31. Jaap Does (1993). Sums and Quantifiers. Linguistics and Philosophy 16 (5):509--550.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  32. Małgorzata Dubiel (1977). Generalized Quantifiers and Elementary Extensions of Countable Models. Journal of Symbolic Logic 42 (3):341-348.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  33. Fredrik Engström (2012). Generalized Quantifiers in Dependence Logic. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 21 (3):299-324.
    We introduce generalized quantifiers, as defined in Tarskian semantics by Mostowski and Lindström, in logics whose semantics is based on teams instead of assignments, e.g., IF-logic and Dependence logic. Both the monotone and the non-monotone case is considered. It is argued that to handle quantifier scope dependencies of generalized quantifiers in a satisfying way the dependence atom in Dependence logic is not well suited and that the multivalued dependence atom is a better choice. This atom is in fact definably equivalent (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (8 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  34. Solomon Feferman, Which Quantifiers Are Logical?
    ✤ It is the characterization of those forms of reasoning that lead invariably from true sentences to true sentences, independently of the subject matter.
    Remove from this list |
    Translate to English
    | Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  35. Tim Fernando, Conservative Generalized Quantifiers and Presupposition.
    Conservativity in generalized quantifiers is linked to presupposition filtering, under a propositions-as-types analysis extended with dependent quantifiers. That analysis is underpinned by modeltheoretically interpretable proofs which inhabit propositions they prove, thereby providing objects for quantification and hooks for anaphora.
    Remove from this list | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  36. Jörg Flum, Matthias Schiehlen & Jouko Väänänen (1999). Quantifiers and Congruence Closure. Studia Logica 62 (3):315-340.
    We prove some results about the limitations of the expressive power of quantifiers on finite structures. We define the concept of a bounded quantifier and prove that every relativizing quantifier which is bounded is already first-order definable (Theorem 3.8). We weaken the concept of congruence closed (see [6]) to weakly congruence closed by restricting to congruence relations where all classes have the same size. Adapting the concept of a thin quantifier (Caicedo [1]) to the framework of finite structures, we define (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  37. Peter Fritz (2013). Modal Ontology and Generalized Quantifiers. Journal of Philosophical Logic 42 (4):643-678.
    Timothy Williamson has argued that in the debate on modal ontology, the familiar distinction between actualism and possibilism should be replaced by a distinction between positions he calls contingentism and necessitism. He has also argued in favor of necessitism, using results on quantified modal logic with plurally interpreted second-order quantifiers showing that necessitists can draw distinctions contingentists cannot draw. Some of these results are similar to well-known results on the relative expressivity of quantified modal logics with so-called inner and outer (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  38. D. M. Gabbay & J. M. E. Moravcsik (1974). Branching Quantifiers, English and Montague Grammar. Theoretical Linguistics 1:140--157.
    Remove from this list |
    Translate to English
    |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  39. Peter Gärdenfors (ed.) (1987). Generalized Quantifiers. Reidel Publishing Company.
    Remove from this list |
    Translate to English
    |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  40. B. Geurts (2005). Monotonicity and Processing Load. Journal of Semantics 22 (1):97-117.
    Starting out from the assumption that monotonicity plays a central role in interpretation and inference, we derive a number of predictions about the complexity of processing quantified sentences. A quantifier may be upward entailing (i.e. license inferences from subsets to supersets) or downward entailing (i.e. license inferences from supersets to subsets). Our main predictions are the following: If the monotonicity profiles of two quantifying expressions are the same, they should be equally easy or hard to process, ceteris paribus. Sentences containing (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (9 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  41. Bart Geurts (2003). Reasoning with Quantifiers. Cognition 86 (3):223--251.
    In the semantics of natural language, quantification may have received more attention than any other subject, and one of the main topics in psychological studies on deductive reasoning is syllogistic inference, which is just a restricted form of reasoning with quantifiers. But thus far the semantical and psychological enterprises have remained disconnected. This paper aims to show how our understanding of syllogistic reasoning may benefit from semantical research on quantification. I present a very simple logic that pivots on the monotonicity (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  42. Nina Gierasimczuk & Jakub Szymanik (2011). A Note on a Generalization of the Muddy Children Puzzle. In K. Apt (ed.), Proceeding of the 13th Conference on Theoretical Aspects of Rationality and Knowledge. ACM.
    We study a generalization of the Muddy Children puzzle by allowing public announcements with arbitrary generalized quantifiers. We propose a new concise logical modeling of the puzzle based on the number triangle representation of quantifi ers. Our general aim is to discuss the possibility of epistemic modeling that is cut for specifi c informational dynamics. Moreover, we show that the puzzle is solvable for any number of agents if and only if the quanti fier in the announcement is positively active (...)
    Remove from this list |
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  43. Nina Gierasimczuk & Jakub Szymanik (2011). Invariance Properties of Quantifiers and Multiagent Information Exchange. In M. Kanazawa (ed.), Proceedings of the 12th Meeting on Mathematics of Language, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 6878. Springer.
    The paper presents two case studies of multi-agent information exchange involving generalized quantifiers. We focus on scenarios in which agents successfully converge to knowledge on the basis of the information about the knowledge of others, so-called Muddy Children puzzle and Top Hat puzzle. We investigate the relationship between certain invariance properties of quantifiers and the successful convergence to knowledge in such situations. We generalize the scenarios to account for public announcements with arbitrary quantifiers. We show that the Muddy Children puzzle (...)
    Remove from this list |
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  44. Nina Gierasimczuk & Jakub Szymanik (2007). Hintikka's Thesis Revisited. Bulletin of Symbolic Logic 13:273.
    We discuss Hintikka’s Thesis [Hintikka 1973] that there exist natural language sentences which require non–linear quantification to express their logical form.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  45. Daniel Gogol (1975). Formulas with Two Generalized Quantifiers. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 16 (1):133-136.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  46. Joanna Golinska-Pilarek & Konrad Zdanowski (2003). Spectra of Formulae with Henkin Quantifiers. In A. Rojszczak, J. Cachro & G. Kurczewski (eds.), Philosophical Dimensions of Logic and Science. Kluwer Academic Publishers.
    It is known that various complexity-theoretical problems can be translated into some special spectra problems. Thus, questions about complexity classes are translated into questions about the expressive power of some languages. In this paper we investigate the spectra of some logics with Henkin quantifiers in the empty vocabulary.
    Remove from this list |
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  47. Georg Gottlob (1997). Relativized Logspace and Generalized Quantifiers Over Finite Ordered Structures. Journal of Symbolic Logic 62 (2):545-574.
    We here examine the expressive power of first order logic with generalized quantifiers over finite ordered structures. In particular, we address the following problem: Given a family Q of generalized quantifiers expressing a complexity class C, what is the expressive power of first order logic FO(Q) extended by the quantifiers in Q? From previously studied examples, one would expect that FO(Q) captures L C , i.e., logarithmic space relativized to an oracle in C. We show that this is not always (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  48. Erich Grädel, Phokion Kolaitis, Libkin G., Marx Leonid, Spencer Maarten, Vardi Joel, Y. Moshe, Yde Venema & Scott Weinstein (2007). Finite Model Theory and its Applications. Springer.
    This book gives a comprehensive overview of central themes of finite model theory – expressive power, descriptive complexity, and zero-one laws – together with selected applications relating to database theory and artificial intelligence, especially constraint databases and constraint satisfaction problems. The final chapter provides a concise modern introduction to modal logic, emphasizing the continuity in spirit and technique with finite model theory. This underlying spirit involves the use of various fragments of and hierarchies within first-order, second-order, fixed-point, and infinitary logics (...)
    Remove from this list |
    Translate to English
    | Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  49. J. A. G. Groenendijk, Dick de Jongh & M. J. B. Stokhof (eds.) (1986/1987). Studies in Discourse Representation Theory and the Theory of Generalized Quantifiers. Foris Publications.
    Semantic Automata Johan van Ben them. INTRODUCTION An attractive, but never very central idea in modern semantics has been to regard linguistic expressions ...
    Remove from this list | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  50. F. Guenthner & J. P. Hoepelman (1976). A Note on the Representation of Branching Quantifiers. Theoretical Linguistics 3:285--289.
    Remove from this list |
    Translate to English
    |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
1 — 50 / 167