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

1000+ found
Sort by:
  1. Hanoch Ben-Yami (2014). Bare Quantifiers? Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 95 (2):175-188.score: 178.0
    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 (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  2. Zoltán Gendler Szabó (2011). Bare Quantifiers. Philosophical Review 120 (2):247 - 283.score: 150.0
    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 (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  3. Thomas E. Patton (1991). On the Ontology of Branching Quantifiers. Journal of Philosophical Logic 20 (2):205 - 223.score: 54.0
    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)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  4. Eytan Zweig (2009). Number-Neutral Bare Plurals and the Multiplicity Implicature. Linguistics and Philosophy 32 (4):353-407.score: 38.0
    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 (9 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  5. Ariel Cohen & Nomi Erteschik-Shir (2002). Topic, Focus, and the Interpretation of Bare Plurals. Natural Language Semantics 10 (2):125-165.score: 30.0
    In this paper we show that focus structure determines the interpretation of bare plurals in English: topic bare plurals are interpreted generically, focused bare plurals are interpreted existentially. When bare plurals are topics they must be specific, i.e. they refer to kinds. After type-shifting they introduce variables which can be bound by the generic quantifier, yielding characterizing generics. Existentially interpreted bare plurals are not variables, but denote properties that are incorporated into the predicate.The type of (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  6. Andrew M. Bailey (2012). No Bare Particulars. Philosophical Studies 158 (1):31-41.score: 24.0
    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)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  7. Peter Fritz (2013). Modal Ontology and Generalized Quantifiers. Journal of Philosophical Logic 42 (4):643-678.score: 24.0
    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)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  8. Tyler Hildebrand (2014). Can Bare Dispositions Explain Categorical Regularities? Philosophical Studies 167 (3):569-584.score: 24.0
    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 (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  9. Robert K. Garcia (2013). Bare Particulars and Constituent Ontology. Acta Analytica (2):1-11.score: 24.0
    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)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  10. Martin Schmidt (2008). On Spacetime, Points, and Bare Particulars. Metaphysica 9 (1):69-77.score: 24.0
    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)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  11. Thomas Hofweber (1999). Ontology and Objectivity. Dissertation, Stanford Universityscore: 24.0
    Ontology is the study of what there is, what kinds of things make up reality. Ontology seems to be a very difficult, rather speculative discipline. However, it is trivial to conclude that there are properties, propositions and numbers, starting from only necessarily true or analytic premises. This gives rise to a puzzle about how hard ontological questions are, and relates to a puzzle about how important they are. And it produces the ontologyobjectivity dilemma: either (certain) ontological questions can be trivially (...)
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  12. Ken Akiba (2009). A New Theory of Quantifiers and Term Connectives. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 18 (3):403-431.score: 24.0
    This paper sets forth a new theory of quantifiers and term connectives, called shadow theory , which should help simplify various semantic theories of natural language by greatly reducing the need of Montagovian proper names, type-shifting, and λ-conversion. According to shadow theory, conjunctive, disjunctive, and negative noun phrases such as John and Mary , John or Mary , and not both John and Mary , as well as determiner phrases such as every man , some woman , and the (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  13. Daniel Giberman (2012). Against Zero-Dimensional Material Objects (and Other Bare Particulars). Philosophical Studies 160 (2):305-321.score: 24.0
    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 (8 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  14. Anna Szabolcsi (2010). Quantification. Cambridge University Press.score: 24.0
    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)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  15. Jakub Szymanik & Marcin Zajenkowski (2010). Quantifiers and Working Memory. In Maria Aloni & Katrin Schulz (eds.), Amsterdam Colloquium 2009, LNAI 6042. Springer.score: 24.0
    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 to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  16. Jakub Szymanik & Marcin Zajenkowski (2009). Understanding Quantifiers in Language. In N. A. Taatgen & H. van Rijn (eds.), Proceedings of the 31st Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society.score: 24.0
    We compare time needed for understanding different types of quantifiers. We show that the computational distinction between quantifiers recognized by finite-automata and pushdown automata is psychologically relevant. Our research improves upon hypothesis and explanatory power of recent neuroimaging studies as well as provides evidence for the claim that human linguistic abilities are constrained by computational complexity.
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  17. Wiebe Van Der Hoek & Maarten De Rijke (1993). Generalized Quantifiers and Modal Logic. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 2 (1):19-58.score: 24.0
    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)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  18. Friederike Moltmann (2003). Nominalizing Quantifiers. Journal of Philosophical Logic 32 (5):445-481.score: 24.0
    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)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  19. Richard Brian Davis (2013). Are Bare Particulars Constituents? Acta Analytica 28 (4):395-410.score: 24.0
    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)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  20. Mathew Abbott (2012). No Life is Bare, the Ordinary is Exceptional: Giorgio Agamben and the Question of Political Ontology. Parrhesia 14:23-36.score: 24.0
    In this article I develop a theory of political ontology, working to differentiate it from traditional political philosophy and Schmittian political theology. As with political theology, political ontology has its primary grounding not in disinterested contemplation from the standpoint of pure reason, but rather in a confrontation with an existential problem. Yet while for Schmitt this is the problem of how to live and think in obedience to God, the problem for political ontology is the question of being. Thus the (...)
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  21. Jakub Szymanik (2009). Quantifiers in TIME and SPACE. Computational Complexity of Generalized Quantifiers in Natural Language. Dissertation, University of Amsterdamscore: 24.0
    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 polynomial (...)
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  22. Christopher Gauker (2014). How Many Bare Demonstratives Are There in English? Linguistics and Philosophy 37 (4):291-314.score: 24.0
    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)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  23. Jeffrey C. King (2008). Complex Demonstratives as Quantifiers: Objections and Replies. Philosophical Studies 141 (2):209 - 242.score: 24.0
    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 (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  24. Tapani Hyttinen & Gabriel Sandu (2000). Henkin Quantifiers and the Definability of Truth. Journal of Philosophical Logic 29 (5):507-527.score: 24.0
    Henkin quantifiers have been introduced in Henkin (1961). Walkoe (1970) studied basic model-theoretical properties of an extension $L_{*}^{1}$ (H) of ordinary first-order languages in which every sentence is a first-order sentence prefixed with a Henkin quantifier. In this paper we consider a generalization of Walkoe's languages: we close $L_{*}^{1}$ (H) with respect to Boolean operations, and obtain the language L¹(H). At the next level, we consider an extension $L_{*}^{2}$ (H) of L¹(H) in which every sentence is an L¹(H)-sentence prefixed (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  25. Edward Keenan & Denis Paperno (2010). Stanley Peters and Dag Westerståhl: Quantifiers in Language and Logic. [REVIEW] Linguistics and Philosophy 33 (6):513-549.score: 24.0
    Quantifiers in Language and Logic (QLL) is a major contribution to natural language semantics, specifically to quantification. It integrates the extensive recent work on quantifiers in logic and linguistics. It also presents new observations and results. QLL should help linguists understand the mathematical generalizations we can make about natural language quantification, and it should interest logicians by presenting an extensive array of quantifiers that lie beyond the pale of classical logic. Here we focus on those aspects of (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  26. Stanley Peters & Dag Westerståhl (2006). Quantifiers in Language and Logic. Clarendon Press.score: 24.0
    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, and many. Peters and Westerstahl present the definitive interdisciplinary exploration of how they work - their syntax, semantics, and inferential role. Quantifiers in Language and Logic is intended for everyone with a scholarly interest in the (...)
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  27. Jakub Szymanik (2010). Computational Complexity of Polyadic Lifts of Generalized Quantifiers in Natural Language. Linguistics and Philosophy 33 (3):215-250.score: 24.0
    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 results to (...)
    Direct download (9 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  28. Hanoch Ben-Yami (2009). Generalized Quantifiers, and Beyond. Logique Et Analyse (208):309-326.score: 24.0
    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 (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  29. Jakub Szymanik & Marcin Zajenkowski (2009). Comprehension of Simple Quantifiers. Empirical Evaluation of a Computational Model. Cognitive Science: A Multidisciplinary Journal 34 (3):521-532.score: 24.0
    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 (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  30. Fredrik Engström (2012). Generalized Quantifiers in Dependence Logic. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 21 (3):299-324.score: 24.0
    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)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  31. Elizabeth Ferch (2013). Scopeless Quantity Words in Shona. Natural Language Semantics 21 (4):373-400.score: 24.0
    In Shona (Bantu, Zimbabwe), bare plurals and bare singulars seem to have different scope possibilities with respect to a class of modifiers which I term “scopeless quantity words” (including numerals, shoma ‘(a) few’, and ose ‘all’). I argue that this is due to two factors. First, the scopeless quantity words are intersective modifiers rather than quantifying determiners, so that DPs containing them denote entities rather than generalised quantifiers. Second, transitive sentences involving plural arguments are usually interpreted using (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  32. Bart Geurts (2003). Reasoning with Quantifiers. Cognition 86 (3):223--251.score: 24.0
    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)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  33. Niall Connolly (forthcoming). Yes: Bare Particulars! Philosophical Studies:1-16.score: 24.0
    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’ (Andrew Bailey’s ‘New Objection’) succeeds—cannot endorse a constituent ontology. There is nothing, I show, in the motivations for Bare Particularism or (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  34. Marcin Mostowski & Jakub Szymanik (2007). Computational Complexity of Some Ramsey Quantifiers in Finite Models. Bulletin of Symbolic Logic 13:281--282.score: 24.0
    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 to English
    | Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  35. Marcin Mostowski (1998). Computational Semantics for Monadic Quantifiers. Journal of Applied Non--Classical Logics 8 (1-2):107--121.score: 24.0
    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)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  36. John Nerbonne (1995). Nominal Comparatives and Generalized Quantifiers. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 4 (4):273-300.score: 24.0
    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)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  37. Jakub Szymanik (2010). Almost All Complex Quantifiers Are Simple. In C. Ebert, G. Jäger, M. Kracht & J. Michaelis (eds.), Mathematics of Language 10/11, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 6149. Springer.score: 24.0
    We prove that PTIME generalized quantifiers are closed under Boolean operations, iteration, cumulation and resumption. -/- .
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  38. Jouko Väänänen & Dag Westerståhl (2002). On the Expressive Power of Monotone Natural Language Quantifiers Over Finite Models. Journal of Philosophical Logic 31 (4):327-358.score: 24.0
    We study definability in terms of monotone generalized quantifiers satisfying Isomorphism Closure, Conservativity and Extension. Among the quantifiers with the latter three properties - here called CE quantifiers - one finds the interpretations of determiner phrases in natural languages. The property of monotonicity is also linguistically ubiquitous, though some determiners like an even number of are highly non-monotone. They are nevertheless definable in terms of monotone CE quantifiers: we give a necessary and sufficient condition for such (...)
    Direct download (10 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  39. Nathan Wildman (forthcoming). Load Bare-Ing Particulars. Philosophical Studies:1-16.score: 24.0
    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)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  40. Livio Robaldo (2010). Independent Set Readings and Generalized Quantifiers. Journal of Philosophical Logic 39 (1):23-58.score: 24.0
    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 (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  41. Lauri Hella, Jouko Väänänen & Dag Westerståhl (1997). Definability of Polyadic Lifts of Generalized Quantifiers. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 6 (3):305-335.score: 24.0
    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)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  42. 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.score: 24.0
    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 to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  43. R. Zuber (2010). A Note on the Monotonicity of Reducible Quantifiers. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 19 (1):123-128.score: 24.0
    We provide necessary and sufficient conditions determining how monotonicity of some classes of reducible quantifiers depends on the monotonicity of simpler quantifiers of iterations to which they are equivalent.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  44. 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.score: 24.0
    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 engagement.
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  45. Anthony J. Sanford, Linda M. Moxey & Kevin Paterson (1994). Psychological Studies of Quantifiers. Journal of Semantics 11 (3):153-170.score: 24.0
    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)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  46. Dorit Ben Shalom (2003). One Connection Between Standard Invariance Conditions on Modal Formulas and Generalized Quantifiers. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 12 (1):47-52.score: 24.0
    The language of standard propositional modal logic has one operator (? or ?), that can be thought of as being determined by the quantifiers ? or ?, respectively: for example, a formula of the form ?F is true at a point s just in case all the immediate successors of s verify F.This paper uses a propositional modal language with one operator determined by a generalized quantifier to discuss a simple connection between standard invariance conditions on modal formulas and (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  47. Gabriel Sandu (1998). Partially Interpreted Relations and Partially Interpreted Quantifiers. Journal of Philosophical Logic 27 (6):587-601.score: 24.0
    Logics in which a relation R is semantically incomplete in a particular universe E, i.e. the union of the extension of R with its anti-extension does not exhaust the whole universe E, have been studied quite extensively in the last years. (Cf. van Benthem (1985), Blamey (1986), and Langholm (1988), for partial predicate logic; Muskens (1996), for the applications of partial predicates to formal semantics, and Doherty (1996) for applications to modal logic.) This is not so with semantically incomplete generalized (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  48. Dorit Ben Shalom (2003). One Connection Between Standard Invariance Conditions on Modal Formulas and Generalized Quantifiers. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 12 (1):47-52.score: 24.0
    The language of standard propositional modal logic has one operator ( or ), that can be thought of as being determined by the quantifiers or , respectively: for example, a formula of the form is true at a point s just in case all the immediate successors of s verify .This paper uses a propositional modal language with one operator determined by a generalized quantifier to discuss a simple connection between standard invariance conditions on modal formulas and generalized (...): the combined generalized quantifier conditions of conservativity and extension correspond to the modal condition of invariance under generated submodels, and the modal condition of invariance under bisimulations corresponds to the generalized quantifier being a Boolean combination of and. (shrink)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  49. Nissim Francez (forthcoming). A Logic Inspired by Natural Language: Quantifiers As Subnectors. Journal of Philosophical Logic:1-20.score: 24.0
    Inspired by the grammar of natural language, the paper presents a variant of first-order logic, in which quantifiers are not sentential operators, but are used as subnectors (operators forming terms from formulas). A quantified term formed by a subnector is an argument of a predicate. The logic is defined by means of a meaning-conferring natural-deduction proof-system, according to the proof-theoretic semantics program. The harmony of the I/E-rules is shown. The paper then presents a translation, called the Frege translation, from (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  50. Martin Hackl (2009). On the Grammar and Processing of Proportional Quantifiers: Most Versus More Than Half. [REVIEW] Natural Language Semantics 17 (1):63--98.score: 24.0
    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)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
1 — 50 / 1000