Search results for 'Bare Quantifiers' (try it on Scholar)

1000+ found
Order:
  1.  21
    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 (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  2. Zoltán Gendler Szabó (2011). Bare Quantifiers. Philosophical Review 120 (2):247 - 283.
    We design new languages, by and large, in order to bypass complexities and limitations within the languages we already have. But when we are concerned with language itself we should guard against projecting the simple and powerful syntax and semantics we have concocted back into the sentences we encounter. For some of the features of English, French, or Ancient Greek we routinely abstract away from in the process of formalization might be linguistic universals – the very features that set human (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  3. Z. G. Szabo (2011). Bare Quantifiers. Philosophical Review 120 (2):247-283.
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  4. Noun Phrases & Generalized Quantifiers (1987). Jon Barwise. In Peter Gärdenfors (ed.), Generalized Quantifiers. Reidel Publishing Company 31--1.
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  5. Branching Generalized Quantifiers (1987). Dag Westerstahl. In Peter Gärdenfors (ed.), Generalized Quantifiers. Reidel Publishing Company 269.
    No categories
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  6.  14
    Thomas E. Patton (1991). On the Ontology of Branching Quantifiers. Journal of Philosophical Logic 20 (2):205 - 223.
    Still, some may still want to say it. If so, my replies may gain nothing better than a stalemate against such persistence, though I can hope that earlier revelations will discourage others from persisting. But two replies are possible. Both come down, one circuitously, to an issue with us from the beginning: whether the language of the right side of (10) is suspect. For if (10) is to support instances for (6) which are about objects, that clause must itself be (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  7.  69
    Stanley Peters & Dag Westersthl (2006). Quantifiers in Language and Logic. Clarendon Press.
    Quantification is a topic which brings together linguistics, logic, and philosophy. Quantifiers are the essential tools with which, in language or logic, we refer to quantity of things or amount of stuff. In English they include such expressions as no, some, all, both, many. Peters and Westerstahl present the definitive interdisciplinary exploration of how they work - their syntax, semantics, and inferential role.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   41 citations  
  8. Andrew M. Bailey (2012). No Bare Particulars. Philosophical Studies 158 (1):31-41.
    There are predicates and subjects. It is thus tempting to think that there are properties on the one hand, and things that have them on the other. I have no quarrel with this thought; it is a fine place to begin a theory of properties and property-having. But in this paper, I argue that one such theory—bare particularism—is false. I pose a dilemma. Either bare particulars instantiate the properties of their host substances or they do not. If they (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   11 citations  
  9.  98
    Anna Szabolcsi (2010). Quantification. Cambridge University Press.
    Machine generated contents note: 1. What this book is about and how to use it; 2. Generalized quantifiers and their elements: operators and their scopes; 3. Generalized quantifiers in non-nominal domains; 4. Some empirically significant properties of quantifiers and determiners; 5. Potential challenges for generalized quantifiers; 6. Scope is not uniform and not a primitive; 7. Existential scope versus distributive scope; 8. Distributivity and scope; 9. Bare numeral indefinites; 10. Modified numerals; 11. Clause-internal scopal diversity; (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   9 citations  
  10.  42
    Jakub Szymanik (2009). Quantifiers in TIME and SPACE. Computational Complexity of Generalized Quantifiers in Natural Language. Dissertation, University of Amsterdam
    In the dissertation we study the complexity of generalized quantifiers in natural language. Our perspective is interdisciplinary: we combine philosophical insights with theoretical computer science, experimental cognitive science and linguistic theories. -/- In Chapter 1 we argue for identifying a part of meaning, the so-called referential meaning (model-checking), with algorithms. Moreover, we discuss the influence of computational complexity theory on cognitive tasks. We give some arguments to treat as cognitively tractable only those problems which can be computed in (...)
    Translate
      Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   9 citations  
  11. Robert K. Garcia (2014). Bare Particulars and Constituent Ontology. Acta Analytica 29 (2):149-159.
    My general aim in this paper is to shed light on the controversial concept of a bare particular. I do so by arguing that bare particulars are best understood in terms of the individuative work they do within the framework of a realist constituent ontology. I argue that outside such a framework, it is not clear that the notion of a bare particular is either motivated or coherent. This is suggested by reflection on standard objections to (...) particulars. However, within the framework of a realist constituent ontology, bare particulars provide for a coherent theory of individuation—one with a potentially significant theoretical price tag, but one that also has advantages over rival theories. (shrink)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  12. Daniel Giberman (2012). Against Zero-Dimensional Material Objects (and Other Bare Particulars). Philosophical Studies 160 (2):305-321.
    A modus tollens against zero-dimensional material objects is presented from the premises (i) that if there are zero-dimensional material objects then there are bare particulars, and (ii) that there are no bare particulars. The argument for the first premise proceeds by elimination. First, bare particular theory and bundle theory are motivated as the most appealing theories of property exemplification. It is then argued that the bundle theorist’s Ockhamism ought to lead her to reject spatiotemporally located zero-dimensional property (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   6 citations  
  13.  17
    Martin Hackl (2009). On the Grammar and Processing of Proportional Quantifiers: Most Versus More Than Half. [REVIEW] Natural Language Semantics 17 (1):63--98.
    Abstract Proportional quantifiers have played a central role in the development of formal semantics because they set a benchmark for the expressive power needed to describe quantification in natural language (Barwise and Cooper Linguist Philos 4:159–219, 1981). The proportional quantifier most, in particular, supplied the initial motivation for adopting Generalized Quantifier Theory (GQT) because its meaning is definable as a relation between sets of individuals, which are taken to be semantic primitives in GQT. This paper proposes an alternative analysis (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   14 citations  
  14. Matteo Morganti (2011). Substrata and Properties: From Bare Particulars to Supersubstantivalism? Metaphysica 12 (2):183-195.
    An argument to the effect that, under a few reasonable assumptions, the bare particular ontology is best understood in terms of supersubstativalism: objects are identical to regions of space(-time) and properties directly inhere in space(-time) points or region as their bearers.
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  15.  61
    Niall Connolly (2015). Yes: Bare Particulars! Philosophical Studies 172 (5):1355-1370.
    What is the Bare Particular Theory? Is it committed, like the Bundle Theory, to a constituent ontology: according to which a substance’s qualities—and according to the Bare Particular Theory, its substratum also—are proper parts of the substance? I argue that Bare Particularists need not, should not, and—if a recent objection to ‘the Bare Particular Theory’ succeeds—cannot endorse a constituent ontology. There is nothing, I show, in the motivations for Bare Particularism or the principles that distinguish (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  16. Tyler Hildebrand (2014). Can Bare Dispositions Explain Categorical Regularities? Philosophical Studies 167 (3):569-584.
    One of the traditional desiderata for a metaphysical theory of laws of nature is that it be able to explain natural regularities. Some philosophers have postulated governing laws to fill this explanatory role. Recently, however, many have attempted to explain natural regularities without appealing to governing laws. Suppose that some fundamental properties are bare dispositions. In virtue of their dispositional nature, these properties must be (or are likely to be) distributed in regular patterns. Thus it would appear that an (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  17.  26
    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 (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   5 citations  
  18.  55
    Jakub Szymanik (2010). Computational Complexity of Polyadic Lifts of Generalized Quantifiers in Natural Language. Linguistics and Philosophy 33 (3):215-250.
    We study the computational complexity of polyadic quantifiers in natural language. This type of quantification is widely used in formal semantics to model the meaning of multi-quantifier sentences. First, we show that the standard constructions that turn simple determiners into complex quantifiers, namely Boolean operations, iteration, cumulation, and resumption, are tractable. Then, we provide an insight into branching operation yielding intractable natural language multi-quantifier expressions. Next, we focus on a linguistic case study. We use computational complexity (...)
    Direct download (9 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   7 citations  
  19.  16
    Mitchell Travis (2015). We ’Re All Infected: Legal Personhood, Bare Life and The Walking Dead‘. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law - Revue Internationale de Sémiotique Juridique 28 (4):787-800.
    This article argues that greater theoretical attention should be paid to the figure of the zombie in the fields of law, cultural studies and philosophy. Using The Walking Dead as a point of critical departure concepts of legal personhood are interrogated in relation to permanent vegetative states, bare life and the notion of the third person. Ultimately, the paper recommends a rejection of personhood; instead favouring a legal and philosophical engagement with humanity and embodiment. Personhood, it is suggested, creates (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  20.  49
    Friederike Moltmann (2003). Nominalizing Quantifiers. Journal of Philosophical Logic 32 (5):445-481.
    Quantified expressions in natural language generally are taken to act like quantifiers in logic, which either range over entities that need to satisfy or not satisfy the predicate in order for the sentence to be true or otherwise are substitutional quantifiers. I will argue that there is a philosophically rather important class of quantified expressions in English that act quite differently, a class that includes something, nothing, and several things. In addition to expressing quantification, such expressions act like (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   13 citations  
  21.  59
    Christopher Gauker (2014). How Many Bare Demonstratives Are There in English? Linguistics and Philosophy 37 (4):291-314.
    In order to capture our intuitions about the logical consistency of sentences and the logical validity of arguments, a semantics for a natural language has to allow for the fact that different occurrences of a single bare demonstrative, such as “this”, may refer to different objects. But it is not obvious how to formulate a semantic theory in order to achieve this result. This paper first criticizes several proposals: that we should formulate our semantics as a semantics for tokens, (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  22.  46
    Nathan Wildman (2015). Load Bare-Ing Particulars. Philosophical Studies 172 (6):1419-1434.
    Bare particularism is a constituent ontology according to which substances—concrete, particular objects like people, tables, and tomatoes—are complex entities constituted by their properties and their bare particulars. Yet, aside from this description, much about bare particularism is fundamentally unclear. In this paper, I attempt to clarify this muddle by elucidating the key metaphysical commitments underpinning any plausible formulation of the position. So the aim here is primarily catechismal rather than evangelical—I don’t intend to convert anyone to (...) particularism, but, by looking at a series of questions, to instead specify what, if one is a bare particularist, one is committed to. Along the way, I address three major objections: a classic objection about whether bare particulars have properties, a new objection raised by Bailey, and an understanding objection that questions some of the position’s resources. (shrink)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  23. 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 (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  24.  8
    V. Troiani, J. Peelle, R. Clark & M. Grossman (2009). Is It Logical to Count on Quantifiers? Dissociable Neural Networks Underlying Numerical and Logical Quantifiers. Neuropsychologia 47 (1):104--111.
    The present study examined the neural substrate of two classes of quantifiers: numerical quantifiers like ” at least three” which require magnitude processing, and logical quantifiers like ” some” which can be understood using a simple form of perceptual logic. We assessed these distinct classes of quantifiers with converging observations from two sources: functional imaging data from healthy adults, and behavioral and structural data from patients with corticobasal degeneration who have acalculia. Our findings are consistent with (...)
    Translate
      Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   5 citations  
  25.  48
    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 (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   8 citations  
  26. Jon Barwise & Robin Cooper (1981). Generalized Quantifiers and Natural Language. Linguistics and Philosophy 4 (2):159--219.
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   201 citations  
  27. 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.
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  28.  18
    Lisa Matthewson (2001). Quantification and the Nature of Crosslinguistic Variation. Natural Language Semantics 9 (2):145-189.
    The standard analysis of quantification says that determiner quantifiers (such as every) take an NP predicate and create a generalized quantifier. The goal of this paper is to subject these beliefs to crosslinguistic scrutiny. I begin by showing that in St'á'imcets (Lillooet Salish), quantifiers always require sisters of argumental type, and the creation of a generalized quantifier from an NP predicate always proceeds in two steps rather than one. I then explicitly adopt the strong null hypothesis that the (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   9 citations  
  29.  30
    Marcin Zajenkowski, Rafał Styła & Jakub Szymanik (2011). A Computational Approach to Quantifiers as an Explanation for Some Language Impairments in Schizophrenia. Journal of Communication Disorder 44:2011.
    We compared the processing of natural language quantifiers in a group of patients with schizophrenia and a healthy control group. In both groups, the difficulty of the quantifiers was consistent with computational predictions, and patients with schizophrenia took more time to solve the problems. However, they were significantly less accurate only with proportional quantifiers, like more than half. This can be explained by noting that, according to the complexity perspective, only proportional quantifiers require working memory (...)
    Translate
      Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  30.  40
    Eytan Zweig (2009). Number-Neutral Bare Plurals and the Multiplicity Implicature. Linguistics and Philosophy 32 (4):353-407.
    Bare plurals (dogs) behave in ways that quantified plurals (some dogs) do not. For instance, while the sentence John owns dogs implies that John owns more than one dog, its negation John does not own dogs does not mean “John does not own more than one dog”, but rather “John does not own a dog”. A second puzzling behavior is known as the dependent plural reading; when in the scope of another plural, the ‘more than one’ meaning of the (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   4 citations  
  31.  17
    Livio Robaldo (2010). Independent Set Readings and Generalized Quantifiers. Journal of Philosophical Logic 39 (1):23-58.
    Several authors proposed to devise logical structures for Natural Language (NL) semantics in which noun phrases yield referential terms rather than standard Generalized Quantifiers. In this view, two main problems arise: the need to refer to the maximal sets of entities involved in the predications and the need to cope with Independent Set (IS) readings, where two or more sets of entities are introduced in parallel. The article illustrates these problems and their consequences, then presents an extension of the (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  32.  24
    Andrea Wilhelm (2008). Bare Nouns and Number in Dëne Sųłiné. Natural Language Semantics 16 (1):39-68.
    This paper documents the number-related properties of Dëne Sųłiné (Athapaskan). Dëne Sųłiné has neither number inflection nor numeral classifiers. Nouns are bare, occur as such in argument positions, and combine directly with numerals. With these traits, Dëne Sųłiné represents a type of language that is little considered in formal typologies of number and countability. The paper critiques one influential proposal, that of Chierchia (in: Rothstein (ed.) Events and grammar, 1998a; Natural Language Semantics 6: 339–405, 1998b), and presents an alternative (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  33.  38
    Jakub Szymanik & Marcin Zajenkowski (2009). Comprehension of Simple Quantifiers. Empirical Evaluation of a Computational Model. Cognitive Science: A Multidisciplinary Journal 34 (3):521-532.
    We examine the verification of simple quantifiers in natural language from a computational model perspective. We refer to previous neuropsychological investigations of the same problem and suggest extending their experimental setting. Moreover, we give some direct empirical evidence linking computational complexity predictions with cognitive reality.
    In the empirical study we compare time needed for understanding different types of quantifiers. We show that the computational distinction between quantifiers recognized by finite-automata and push-down automata is psychologically relevant. Our research improves (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  34.  9
    Ariel Cohen & Manfred Krifka (2014). Superlative Quantifiers and Meta-Speech Acts. Linguistics and Philosophy 37 (1):41-90.
    Recent research has shown that the superlative quantifiers at least and at most do not have the same type of truth conditions as the comparative quantifiers more than and fewer than. We propose that superlative quantifiers are interpreted at the level of speech acts. We relate them to denegations of speech acts, as in I don’t promise to come, which we analyze as excluding the speech act of a promise to come. Calling such conversational acts that affect (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  35.  41
    Richard Brian Davis (2013). Are Bare Particulars Constituents? Acta Analytica 28 (4):395-410.
    In this article I examine an as yet unexplored aspect of J.P. Moreland’s defense of so-called bare particularism — the ontological theory according to which ordinary concrete particulars (e.g., Socrates) contain bare particulars as individuating constituents and property ‘hubs.’ I begin with the observation that if there is a constituency relation obtaining between Socrates and his bare particular, it must be an internal relation, in which case the natures of the relata will necessitate the relation. I then (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  36.  58
    Jakub Szymanik & Marcin Zajenkowski (2010). Quantifiers and Working Memory. In Maria Aloni & Katrin Schulz (eds.), Amsterdam Colloquium 2009, LNAI 6042. Springer
    The paper presents a study examining the role of working<br>memory in quantifier verification. We created situations similar to the<br>span task to compare numerical quantifiers of low and high rank, parity<br>quantifiers and proportional quantifiers. The results enrich and support<br>the data obtained previously in and predictions drawn from a computational<br>model.
    Translate
      Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  37.  96
    Martin Schmidt (2008). On Spacetime, Points, and Bare Particulars. Metaphysica 9 (1):69-77.
    In his paper Bare Particulars, T. Sider claims that one of the most plausible candidates for bare particulars are spacetime points. The aim of this paper is to shed light on Sider’s reasoning and its consequences. There are three concepts of spacetime points that allow their identification with bare particulars. One of them, Moderate structural realism, is considered to be the most adequate due its appropriate approach to spacetime metric and moderate view of mereological simples. However, it (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  38.  47
    Marcin Mostowski & Jakub Szymanik (2007). Computational Complexity of Some Ramsey Quantifiers in Finite Models. Bulletin of Symbolic Logic 13:281--282.
    The problem of computational complexity of semantics for some natural language constructions – considered in [M. Mostowski, D. Wojtyniak 2004] – motivates an interest in complexity of Ramsey quantifiers in finite models. In general a sentence with a Ramsey quantifier R of the following form Rx, yH(x, y) is interpreted as ∃A(A is big relatively to the universe ∧A2 ⊆ H). In the paper cited the problem of the complexity of the Hintikka sentence is reduced to the problem of (...)
    Translate
      Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  39.  44
    Wiebe Van Der Hoek & Maarten De Rijke (1993). Generalized Quantifiers and Modal Logic. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 2 (1):19-58.
    We study several modal languages in which some (sets of) generalized quantifiers can be represented; the main language we consider is suitable for defining any first order definable quantifier, but we also consider a sublanguage thereof, as well as a language for dealing with the modal counterparts of some higher order quantifiers. These languages are studied both from a modal logic perspective and from a quantifier perspective. Thus the issues addressed include normal forms, expressive power, completeness both of (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   5 citations  
  40.  32
    Marcin Mostowski (1998). Computational Semantics for Monadic Quantifiers. Journal of Applied Non--Classical Logics 8 (1-2):107--121.
    The paper gives a survey of known results related to computational devices (finite and push–down automata) recognizing monadic generalized quantifiers in finite models. Some of these results are simple reinterpretations of descriptive—feasible correspondence theorems from finite–model theory. Additionally a new result characterizing monadic quantifiers recognized by push down automata is proven.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   4 citations  
  41.  26
    Anthony J. Sanford, Linda M. Moxey & Kevin Paterson (1994). Psychological Studies of Quantifiers. Journal of Semantics 11 (3):153-170.
    In this paper we present a summary review of recent psychological studies which make a contribution to an understanding of how quantifiers are used. Until relatively recently, the contribution which psychology has made has been somewhat restricted. For example, the approach which has enjoyed the greatest popularity in psychology is explaining quantifiers as expressions which have fuzzy or vague projections on to mental scales of amount. Following Moxey & Sanford (1993a), this view is questioned. Experimental work is summarized (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   5 citations  
  42.  30
    Reiner Hähnle (1998). Commodious Axiomatization of Quantifiers in Multiple-Valued Logic. Studia Logica 61 (1):101-121.
    We provide tools for a concise axiomatization of a broad class of quantifiers in many-valued logic, so-called distribution quantifiers. Although sound and complete axiomatizations for such quantifiers exist, their size renders them virtually useless for practical purposes. We show that for quantifiers based on finite distributive lattices compact axiomatizations can be obtained schematically. This is achieved by providing a link between skolemized signed formulas and filters/ideals in Boolean set lattices. Then lattice theoretic tools such as Birkhoff's (...)
    Direct download (9 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  43.  31
    Juha Kontinen & Jakub Szymanik (2011). Characterizing Definability of Second-Order Generalized Quantifiers. In L. Beklemishev & R. de Queiroz (eds.), Proceedings of the 18th Workshop on Logic, Language, Information and Computation, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 6642. Springer
    We study definability of second-order generalized quantifiers. We show that the question whether a second-order generalized quantifier $\sQ_1$ is definable in terms of another quantifier $\sQ_2$, the base logic being monadic second-order logic, reduces to the question if a quantifier $\sQ^{\star}_1$ is definable in $\FO(\sQ^{\star}_2,<,+,\times)$ for certain first-order quantifiers $\sQ^{\star}_1$ and $\sQ^{\star}_2$. We use our characterization to show new definability and non-definability results for second-order generalized quantifiers. In particular, we show that the monadic second-order majority quantifier $\most^1$ (...)
    Translate
      Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  44.  3
    Juha Kontinen (2004). Definability of Second Order Generalized Quantifiers. Dissertation,
    We study second order generalized quantifiers on finite structures. One starting point of this research has been the notion of definability of Lindström quantifiers. We formulate an analogous notion for second order generalized quantifiers and study definability of second order generalized quantifiers in terms of Lindström quantifiers.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  45.  19
    John Nerbonne (1995). Nominal Comparatives and Generalized Quantifiers. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 4 (4):273-300.
    This work adopts the perspective of plural logic and measurement theory in order first to focus on the microstructure of comparative determiners; and second, to derive the properties of comparative determiners as these are studied in Generalized Quantifier Theory, locus of the most sophisticated semantic analysis of natural language determiners. The work here appears to be the first to examine comparatives within plural logic, a step which appears necessary, but which also harbors specific analytical problems examined here.Since nominal comparatives involve (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   5 citations  
  46.  7
    Franco Montagna (2012). Δ-Core Fuzzy Logics with Propositional Quantifiers, Quantifier Elimination and Uniform Craig Interpolation. Studia Logica 100 (1-2):289-317.
    In this paper we investigate the connections between quantifier elimination, decidability and Uniform Craig Interpolation in Δ-core fuzzy logics added with propositional quantifiers. As a consequence, we are able to prove that several propositional fuzzy logics have a conservative extension which is a Δ-core fuzzy logic and has Uniform Craig Interpolation.
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  47.  22
    Lauri Hella, Jouko Väänänen & Dag Westerståhl (1997). Definability of Polyadic Lifts of Generalized Quantifiers. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 6 (3):305-335.
    We study generalized quantifiers on finite structures.With every function : we associate a quantifier Q by letting Q x say there are at least (n) elementsx satisfying , where n is the sizeof the universe. This is the general form ofwhat is known as a monotone quantifier of type .We study so called polyadic liftsof such quantifiers. The particular lifts we considerare Ramseyfication, branching and resumption.In each case we get exact criteria fordefinability of the lift in terms of (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   4 citations  
  48.  11
    R. Zuber (2007). Symmetric and Contrapositional Quantifiers. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 16 (1):1-13.
    The article studies two related issues. First, it introduces the notion of the contraposition of quantifiers which is a “dual” notion of symmetry and has similar relations to co-intersectivity as symmetry has to intersectivity. Second, it shows how symmetry and contraposition can be generalised to higher order type quantifiers, while preserving their relations with other notions from generalized quantifiers theory.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  49.  59
    Jeffrey C. King (2008). Complex Demonstratives as Quantifiers: Objections and Replies. Philosophical Studies 141 (2):209 - 242.
    In “Complex Demonstratives: A Quantificational Account” (MIT Press 2001) (henceforth CD), I argued that complex demonstratives are quantifiers. Many philosophers had held that demonstratives, both simple and complex, are referring terms. Since the publication of CD various objections to the account of complex demonstratives I defended in it have been raised. In the present work, I lay out these objections and respond to them.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  50.  30
    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.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
1 — 50 / 1000