David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Linguistics and Philosophy 35 (3):191-241 (2012)
We argue that a comprehensive theory of reciprocals must rely on a general taxonomy of restrictions on the interpretation of relational expressions. Developing such a taxonomy, we propose a new principle for interpreting reciprocals that relies on the interpretation of the relation in their scope. This principle, the Maximal Interpretation Hypothesis (MIH), analyzes reciprocals as partial polyadic quantifiers. According to the MIH, the partial quantifier denoted by a reciprocal requires the relational expression REL in its scope to denote a maximal relation in REL’s interpretation domain. In this way the MIH avoids a priori assumptions on the available readings of reciprocal expressions, which are necessary in previous accounts. Relying extensively on the work of Dalrymple et al. (Ling Philos 21:159–210, 1998), we show that the MIH also exhibits some observational improvements over Dalrymple et al.’s Strongest Meaning Hypothesis (SMH). In addition to deriving some attested reciprocal interpretations that are not expected by the SMH, the MIH offers a more restrictive account of the way context affects the interpretation of reciprocals through its influence on relational domains. Further, the MIH generates a reciprocal interpretation at the predicate level, which is argued to be advantageous to Dalrymple et al.’s propositional selection of reciprocal meanings. More generally, we argue that by focusing on restrictions on relational domains, the MIH opens the way for a more systematic study of the ways in which lexical meaning, world knowledge and contextual information interact with the interpretation of quantificational expressions
|Keywords||Reciprocals Relational domains 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
Roger Schwarzschild (1996). Pluralities. Springer.
H. Kamp (1995). Prototype Theory and Compositionality. Cognition 57 (2):129-191.
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.
R. van Rooij (2011). Measurement and Interadjective Comparisons. Journal of Semantics 28 (3):335-358.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Oliver Bott, Fabian Schlotterbeck & Jakub Szymanik (forthcoming). Interpreting Tractable Versus Intractable Reciprocal Sentences. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Computational Semantics.
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.
Yoad Winter (2001). Plural Predication and the Strongest Meaning Hypothesis. Journal of Semantics 18 (4):333-365.
Jakub Szymanik (2009). The Computational Complexity of Quantified Reciprocals. In Peter Bosch, David Gabelaia & Jérôme Lang (eds.), Lecture Notes on Artificial Intelligence 5422, Logic, Language, and Computation 7th International Tbilisi Symposium on Logic, Language, and Computation. Springer
Hana Filip & Gregory N. Carlson (2001). Distributivity Strengthens Reciprocity, Collectivity Weakens It. Linguistics and Philosophy 24 (4):417-466.
Joop Leo (2013). Relational Complexes. Journal of Philosophical Logic 42 (2):357-390.
Yoad Winter (2005). Scope Dominance with Upward Monotone Quantifiers. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 14 (4):445-455.
Alon Altman, Ya'Acov Peterzil & Yoad Winter (2005). Scope Dominance with Upward Monotone Quantifiers. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 14 (4):445-455.
Grant Ramsey & Robert Brandon (2011). Why Reciprocal Altruism is Not a Kind of Group Selection. Biology and Philosophy 26 (3):385-400.
Richard A. Fumerton (2000). Relational, Non-Relational, and Mixed Theories of Experience. In The Proceedings of the Twentieth World Congress of Philosophy. Charlottesville: Philosophy Documentation Center 21-28.
Matthew J. Brown (2009). Relational Quantum Mechanics and the Determinacy Problem. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 60 (4):679-695.
Yoad Winter (2004). Scope Dominance with Monotone Quantifiers Over Finite Domains. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 13 (4):385-402.
Michele Caponigro, Approach to Physical Reality: A Note on Poincare Group and the Philosophy of Nagarjuna.
Michael Epperson (2009). Quantum Mechanics and Relational Realism. Process Studies 38 (2):340-367.
Added to index2012-10-08
Total downloads12 ( #271,590 of 1,789,938 )
Recent downloads (6 months)6 ( #140,142 of 1,789,938 )
How can I increase my downloads?