Skip to main content
Log in

On contextual domain restriction in categorial grammar

Synthese Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Quantifier domain restriction (QDR) and two versions of nominal restriction (NR) are implemented as restrictions that depend on a previously introduced interpreter and interpretation time in a two-dimensional semantic framework on the basis of simple type theory and categorial grammar. Against Stanley (2002) it is argued that a suitable version of QDR can deal with superlatives like tallest. However, it is shown that NR is needed to account for utterances when the speaker intends to convey different restrictions for multiple uses of the same quantifying determiner. We argue that NR generally fares better with such examples but also observe that examples like Every sailor waves at every sailor might be pragmatically anomalous. An account of contextual domain restriction is proposed that (i) excludes these anomalous readings (but it is shown how they could be included), (ii) makes it possible to express different contextual domain restrictions as long-range dependencies on an interpreter and an interpretation time, and (iii) additionally models restrictions based on locative constructions as general mereological constraints introduced by shifting the index.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Bach K. (2004) Minding the gap. In: Bianchi C. (Ed.) The semantics/pragmatics distinction. CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA, pp 27–43

    Google Scholar 

  • Bach K. (2005) Context ex machina. In: Szabó Z. G. (Ed.) Semantics versus pragmatics. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 16–44

    Google Scholar 

  • Bach, K. (2007a). From the strange to the bizarre: Another reply to Cappelen and Lepore. Department of Philosophy, University of San Francisco. Retrieved May 2008, from http://userwww.sfsu.edu/~kbach/.

  • Bach, K. (2007b). Minimalism for dummies: Reply to Cappelen and Lepore. Department of Philosophy, University of San Francisco. Retrieved May 2008, from http://userwww.sfsu.edu/~kbach/.

  • Borg E. (2004) Minimal semantics. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Cappelen H., Lepore E. (2005) Insensitive semantics. Blackwell, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Carpenter B. (1997) Type-logical semantic. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Castañeda H.-N. (1967) Indicators and quasi-indicators. American Philosophical Quarterly 4: 85–100

    Google Scholar 

  • Castañeda H.-N. (1989) Thinking, language, experience. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, MN

    Google Scholar 

  • Dietz R. (2008) Epistemic modals and correct disagreement. In: Carcía-Carpintero M., Kölbel M. (eds) Relative truth. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 239–262

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Etxeberria, U. (2006). Contextual restriction and quantification in basque. In S. Vogeleer (Ed.), Bare plurals, indefinites, and weak-strong distinction (pp. 211–245), Vol. 19 of Belgian Journal of Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

  • Giannakidou, A. (2004). Domain restriction and the arguments of quantificational determiners. In Proceedings of SALT 14 (pp. 110–128). Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

  • Heim I., Kratzer A. (2005) Semantics in generative grammar. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Hobbs J. R., Stickel D. A., Martin P. (1993) Interpretation as abduction. Artificial Intelligence 63(1–2): 69–142

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iacona A. (2008) Faultless or disagreement (Chapter 13). In: Carcía-Carpintero M. (Ed.) Relative truth. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 287–295

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Jäger G. (2005) Anaphora and type logical grammar. Springer, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan D. (1989) Demonstratives: An essay on the semantics, logic, metaphysics, and epistemology of demonstratives and other indexicals. In: Almog J., Perry J., Wettstein H. (eds) Themes from Kaplan. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 481–564

    Google Scholar 

  • Kratzer, A. (2004). Covert quantifier restrictions in natural language. Handout of talk given at the University of British Columbia in 2004, Version of June 2008, SemanticsArchive.net: http://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/mIzMGUyZ/.

  • Lambek J. (1958) The mathematics of sentence structure. American Mathematical Monthly 65(65): 154–170

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lasersohn P. (2005) Context dependence, disagreement, and predicates of personal taste. Linguistics and Philosophy 28(6): 643–686

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lasersohn P. (2008) Quantification and perspective in relativist semantics. Philosophical Perspectives 22(1): 305–337

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis D. K. (1980) Index, context and content. In: Kanger S., Öhman S. (eds) Philosophy and grammar. D. Reidel, Dordrecht, pp 79–100

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • MacFarlane, J. (2005). The assessment sensitivity of knowledge attributions. In T. S. Gendler & J. Hawthorne (Eds.), Oxford studies in epistemology (Vol. 1, pp. 197–233). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • MacFarlane J. (2007a) Nonindexical contextualism. Synthese 166(2): 231–250

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacFarlane J. (2007b) Relativism and disagreement. Philosophical Studies 132(1): 17–31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacFarlane J. (2008) Truth in the garden of forking paths. In: Carcía-Carpintero M., Kölbel M. (eds) Relative truth. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 81–102

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Martí Martínez M. L. (2003). Contextual variables. PhD thesis, University of Connecticut.

  • Montague R. (1974) The proper treatment of quantification in ordinary English. In: Thomason R. H. (Ed.) Formal philosophy: Selected papers of Richard Montague. Yale University Press, London, pp 247–270

    Google Scholar 

  • Moortgat M. (1997) Categorial type logics. In: Benthem J. v., Meulen A. (eds) Handbook of logic and language. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp 93–178

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Morrill G. (1994) Type logical grammar: Categorial logic of signs. Kluwer, Dordrecht

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Moruzzi S. (2008) Assertion, belief and disagreement: A problem for truth-relativism. In: Carcía-Carpintero M., Kölbel M. (eds) Relative truth. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 207–224

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Mount A. (2008) The impurity of “pure” indexicals. Philosophical Studies 138: 193–209

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Partee B. H. (2002) Noun phrase interpretation and type-shifting principles. In: Portner P., Partee B. H. (eds) Formal semantics: The essential readings. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 357–381

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Penco C. (1999) Objective and cognitive context. In: Benerecetti M., Castellani F. (eds) Modeling and using context: Lecture notes in artificial intelligence 1688. Springer, New York, pp 270–283

    Google Scholar 

  • Penco C. (2008) Context and contract. In: Bouquet P., Serafini L., Thomason R. (eds) Perspectives on context. CSLI, Stanford, CA, pp 187–212

    Google Scholar 

  • Perry J. (1977) Frege on demonstratives. Philosophical Review 86: 474–497

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perry J. (1979) The problem of the essential indexical. Noûs 13: 3–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perry, J. (1997). Indexicals and demonstratives. In R. Hale & C. Wright, Companion to the philosophy of language. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

  • Perry, J. (1998). Indexicals, contexts and unarticulated constituents. In Proceedings of the 1995 CSLI Amsterdam logic, language and computation conference. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications

  • Perry J. (2001) Reference and reflexivity. CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA

    Google Scholar 

  • Perry J. (2003) Predelli’s threatening note: Contexts, utterances, and tokens in the philosophy of language. Journal of Pragmatics 35: 373–387

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perry J. (2005) Using indexicals. In: Devitt M. (Ed.) Blackwell guide to the philosophy of language. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 314–334

    Google Scholar 

  • Predelli S. (2006) The problem with token-reflexivity. Synthese 148(1): 5–29

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rast E. H. (2007) Reference and indexicality. Logos Verlag, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Rast E.H. (2009) Context and interpretation. In: Larrazabal J.M., Zubeldia L. (eds) Meaning, content, and argument, Proceedings of the ILCLI international workshop on semantics, pragmatics, and rhetoric. University of the Basque Country Press, San Sebastian, pp 515–534

    Google Scholar 

  • Recanati, F. (2004a). Deixis and anaphora. In Z. G. Szabó, Semantics vs. pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Recanati F. (2004b) Literal meaning. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Recanati F. (2010) Truth-conditional pragmatics. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Stalnaker, R. (1978). Assertion. In P. Cole (Ed.), Pragmatics (pp. 315–332). New York: Academic Press (=Syntax and semantics vol 9)

  • Stanley J. (2000) Context and logical form. Linguistics and Philosophy 23(4): 391–434

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stanley J. (2002) Nominal restriction (Chapter 12). In: Preyer G., Peter G. (eds) Logical form and language. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 365–388

    Google Scholar 

  • Stanley J., Szabó Z. G. (2000) On quantifier domain restriction. Mind & Language 15(2–3): 219–261

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steedman M. (1996) Surface structure and interpretation. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Steedman M. (2000) The syntactic process. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Stojanovic I. (2007) Talking about taste: Disagreement, implicit arguments, and relative truth. Linguistics and Philosophy 30(6): 691–706

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stokke A. (2010) Intention-sensitive semantics. Synthese 175(3): 383–404

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Benthem J. (1995) Language in action. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • von Fintel, K. (1994). Restrictions on quantifier domains. PhD thesis, University of Massachusetts.

  • von Stechow A., Zimmermann T. E. (2005) A problem for a compositional treatment of de re attitudes. In: Carlson G. N., Pelletier F. J. (eds) Reference and quantification: The Partee effect. CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA, pp 207–228

    Google Scholar 

  • Westerståhl D. (1984) Determiners and context sets. In: Benthem J., Meuren A. (eds) Quantifiers in natural language. Foris, Dordrecht, pp 45–71

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Erich H. Rast.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Rast, E.H. On contextual domain restriction in categorial grammar. Synthese 190, 2085–2115 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-011-9960-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-011-9960-2

Keywords

Navigation