Domain restriction and the arguments of quantificational determiners
| Abstract | Classical generalized quantifier (GQ) theory posits that quantificational determiners (Q-dets) combine with a nominal argument of type et, a first order predicate, to form a GQ. In a recent paper, Matthewson (2001) challenges this position by arguing that the domain of a Q-det is not of type et, but e, an entity. In this paper, I defend the classical GQ view, and argue that the data that motivated Matthewson’s revision actually suggest that the domain set can, and indeed in certain languages must, be contextually restricted overtly. | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,865 |
| External links |
  Try with proxy. |
| Through your library | Only published papers are available at libraries |
Similar books and articlesAlan Weir (2006). Is It Too Much to Ask, to Ask for Everything. In Agustín Rayo & Gabriel Uzquiano (eds.), Absolute Generality. Oxford University Press.
Philip Hugly & Charles Sayward (1987). Domains of Discourse. Logique Et Analyse 117:173-176.
Claudia Bianchi (2006). 'Nobody Loves Me': Quantification and Context. Philosophical Studies 130 (2):377 - 397.
Marga Reimer (1992). Incomplete Descriptions. Erkenntnis 37 (3):347 - 363.
Ron Artstein (2005). Quantificational Arguments in Temporal Adjunct Clauses. Linguistics and Philosophy 28 (5):541 - 597.
John Nerbonne (1995). Nominal Comparatives and Generalized Quantifiers. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 4 (4):273-300.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2009-01-28Total downloads22 ( #57,056 of 556,837 )Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #64,847 of 556,837 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
