David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Linguistics and Philosophy 4 (2):259 - 309 (1981)
In the opening sections of this paper, we defined ambiguity in terms of distinct sentences (for a single sentence-string) with, in particular, distinct sets of truth conditions for the corresponding negative sentence-string. Lexical vagueness was defined as equivalent to disjunction, for under conditions of the negation of a sentence-string containing such an expression, all the relevant more specific interpretations of the string had also to be negated. Yet in the case of mixed quantification sentences, the strengthened, more specific, interpretations of some such positive string are not all of them necessarily implied to be false if the corresponding negative sentence-string is asserted. On the contrary, as we saw in section 6, a negative sentence-string can be used to deny one of the more specific interpretations of the corresponding positive string without also denying other weaker interpretations of that same string. One might therefore argue that the only empirical evidence availble for assessing quantified sentences suggests clearly that these sentence-strings are ambiguous. Indeed logicians, many of whom restrict their attention to propositions, MUST recognise logical ambiguity at this point. For the contextualisation of the negative sentences in section 6 showed that it was possible to assert the falsity of some proposition P expressed by the sentence S while asserting a further proposition which was compatible with the truth of S. However the corresponding conclusion that such sentence-strings are sententially ambiguous is not a necessary conclusion for the linguist: for the alternative account of postulating a single semantic representation plus a set of semantic procedures is also compatible with the negation evidence. Moreover we have seen independent reasons for thinking that if sentential ambiguity is assumed to be in one-to-one correspondence with what we should now call logical ambiguity, a considerable body of generalisations is lost. For the maximal ambiguity account, it should be recalled, is committed to assigning at least thirteen distinct propositions and hence thirteen distinct sentence outputs for every sentence-string containing no more than two quantifiers, for three out of the four interpretations originally outlined in this paper can be understood with each numeral taken either in an ’exactly’ sense or in an ’at least’ sense. Moreover there is no explanation of why just these interpretations are available-they are merely an arbitrary list, no more connected than are the two interpretations of John saw her duck, with no reason to predict that the ambiguity would carry over from language to language. If then it is granted that an ambiguity account fails to capture appropriate generalisations, only two alternative accounts of mixed quantification sentence-strings remain viable-an analysis proposing an initial co-ordinate logical form like the logical form III, which is the strongest form compatible with each of the propositional interpretations of sentence-string Two examiners marked six scripts, and the radically weak form in which only existential quantification (both over sets and over members of those sets) is invoked. Since there are strong arguments to suggest that the procedures which both analyses require are semantic, there seems no reason not to adopt the radical vagueness account, with its considerably greater simplicity
|Keywords||in language natural quantifiers|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
Noam A. Chomsky (1976). Reflections On Language. Temple Smith.
Jerrold J. Katz (1977). Propositional Structure and Illocutionary Force: A Study of the Contribution of Sentence Meaning to Speech Acts. Harvester.
Greg N. Carlson (1977). A Unified Analysis of the English Bare Plural. Linguistics and Philosophy 1 (3):413 - 456.
George Lakoff (1970). Linguistics and Natural Logic. Synthese 22 (1-2):151 - 271.
Jay David Atlas (1977). Negation, Ambiguity, and Presupposition. Linguistics and Philosophy 1 (3):321 - 336.
Citations of this work BETA
Jakub Szymanik (2010). Computational Complexity of Polyadic Lifts of Generalized Quantifiers in Natural Language. Linguistics and Philosophy 33 (3):215-250.
Nina Gierasimczuk & Jakub Szymanik (2009). Branching Quantification V. Two-Way Quantification. Journal of Semantics 26 (4):329-366.
Howard S. Kurtzman & Maryellen C. MacDonald (1993). Resolution of Quantifier Scope Ambiguities. Cognition 48 (3):243-279.
Livio Robaldo (2010). Independent Set Readings and Generalized Quantifiers. Journal of Philosophical Logic 39 (1):23-58.
David Gil (1982). Quantifier Scope, Linguistic Variation, and Natural Language Semantics. Linguistics and Philosophy 5 (4):421 - 472.
Similar books and articles
Mark Textor (2005). Truth Via Sentential Quantification. Dialogue 44 (3):539-550.
Mireille Staschok (2008). Non-Traditional Squares of Predication and Quantification. Logica Universalis 2 (1):77-85.
Annabel Cormack & Ruth M. Kempson (1981). On 'Formal Games and Forms for Games'. Linguistics and Philosophy 4 (3):431 - 435.
Richard Kaye (1991). A Generalization of Specker's Theorem on Typical Ambiguity. Journal of Symbolic Logic 56 (2):458-466.
Tobias Rosefeldt (2008). 'That'-Clauses and Non-Nominal Quantification. Philosophical Studies 137 (3):301 - 333.
Brendan S. Gillon (1990). Ambiguity, Generality, and Indeterminacy: Tests and Definitions. [REVIEW] Synthese 85 (3):391 - 416.
Philip Hugly & Charles Sayward (1982). Indenumerability and Substitutional Quantification. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 23 (4):358-366.
Philippe De Rouilhan (2002). On What There Are. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 102:183 - 200.
Ruth Barcan Marcus (1962). Interpreting Quantification. Inquiry 5 (1-4):252 – 259.
Ruth M. Kempson & Annabel Cormack (1982). Quantification and Pragmatics. Linguistics and Philosophy 4 (4):607 - 618.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads30 ( #132,656 of 1,907,384 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #275,486 of 1,907,384 )
How can I increase my downloads?