Search results for 'objectual quantification' (try it on Scholar)

1000+ found
Sort by:
  1. Universally Free First Order Quantification (forthcoming). A Note on Universally Free First Order Quantification Theory Ap Rao. Logique Et Analyse.score: 120.0
    No categories
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  2. Philip Hugly & Charles Sayward (1982). Indenumerability and Substitutional Quantification. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 23 (4):358-366.score: 54.0
    We here establish two theorems which refute a pair of what we believe to be plausible assumptions about differences between objectual and substitutional quantification. The assumptions (roughly stated) are as follows: (1) there is at least one set d and denumerable first order language L such that d is the domain set of no interpretation of L in which objectual and substitutional quantification coincide. (2) There exist interpreted, denumerable, first order languages K with indenumerable domains such (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  3. Berit Brogaard (2008). Inscrutability and Ontological Commitment. Philosophical Studies 141 (1):21 - 42.score: 45.0
    There are two doctrines for which Quine is particularly well known: the doctrine of ontological commitment and the inscrutability thesis—the thesis that reference and quantification are inscrutable. At first glance, the two doctrines are squarely at odds. If there is no fact of the matter as to what our expressions refer to, then it would appear that no determinate commitments can be read off of our best theories. We argue here that the appearance of a clash between the two (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  4. James E. Tomberlin (1997). Quantification: Objectual or Substitutional? Philosophical Issues 8:155-167.score: 36.0
  5. Philip Percival (2011). Predicate Abstraction, the Limits of Quantification, and the Modality of Existence. Philosophical Studies 156 (3):389-416.score: 30.0
    For various reasons several authors have enriched classical first order syntax by adding a predicate abstraction operator. “Conservatives” have done so without disturbing the syntax of the formal quantifiers but “revisionists” have argued that predicate abstraction motivates the universal quantifier’s re-classification from an expression that combines with a variable to yield a sentence from a sentence, to an expression that combines with a one-place predicate to yield a sentence. My main aim is to advance the cause of predicate abstraction while (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  6. Philip Hugly & Charles Sayward (1991). Prior and Lorenzen on Quantification. Grazer Philosophishe Studien 41:150-173.score: 27.0
    A case against Prior’s theory of propositions goes thus: (1) everyday propositional generalizations are not substitutional; (2) Priorean quantifications are not objectual; (3) quantifications are substitutional if not objectual; (4) thus, Priorean quantifications are substitutional; (5) thus that Priorean quantifications are not ontologically committed to propositions provides no basis for a similar claim about our everyday propositional generalizations. Prior agrees with (1) and (2). He rejects (3), but fails to support that rejection with an account of quantification (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  7. David Dolby, The Ineliminability of Non-Nominal Quantification.score: 21.0
    Objectual interpretations of non-nominal quantification seems to offer a non-substitutional treatment of quantification which respects differences of grammatical category in the object language whilst only employing nominal quantification in the metalanguage. I argue that the satisfaction conditions of such interpretations makes use concepts that must themselves be explained through non-nominal quantification. As a result, the interpretation misrepresents the structure of non-nominal quantification and the relationship between nominal and non-nominal forms of generality.
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  8. Philip Hugly & Charles Sayward (1987). Why Substitutional Quantification Does Not Express Existence. Theory and Decision 50:67-75.score: 18.0
    Fundamental to Quine’s philosophy of logic is the thesis that substitutional quantification does not express existence. This paper considers the content of this claim and the reasons for thinking it is true.
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  9. Ori Simchen (2010). Polyadic Quantification Via Denoting Concepts. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 51 (3):373-381.score: 18.0
    The question of the origin of polyadic expressivity is explored and the results are brought to bear on Bertrand Russell's 1903 theory of denoting concepts, which is the main object of criticism in his 1905 "On Denoting." It is shown that, appearances to the contrary notwithstanding, the background ontology of the earlier theory of denoting enables the full-blown expressive power of first-order polyadic quantification theory without any syntactic accommodation of scopal differences among denoting phrases such as 'all φ', 'every (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  10. Øystein Linnebo, Plural Quantification. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.score: 18.0
    Ordinary English contains different forms of quantification over objects. In addition to the usual singular quantification, as in 'There is an apple on the table', there is plural quantification, as in 'There are some apples on the table'. Ever since Frege, formal logic has favored the two singular quantifiers ∀x and ∃x over their plural counterparts ∀xx and ∃xx (to be read as for any things xx and there are some things xx). But in recent decades it (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  11. Philip Hugly & Charles Sayward (2002). There Is A Problem with Substitutional Quantification. Theoria 68 (1):4-12.score: 18.0
    Whereas arithmetical quantification is substitutional in the sense that a some-quantification is true only if some instance of it is true, it does not follow (and, in fact, is not true) that an account of the truth-conditions of the sentences of the language of arithmetic can be given by a substitutional semantics. A substitutional semantics fails in a most fundamental fashion: it fails to articulate the truth-conditions of the quantifications with which it is concerned. This is what is (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  12. Friederike Moltmann, Quantification with Intentional and with Intensional Verbs.score: 18.0
    The question whether natural language permits quantification over intentional objects as the ‘nonexistent’ objects of thought is the topic of major philosophical controversy, as is the status of intentional objects as such. This paper will argue that natural language does reflect a particular notion of intentional object and in particular that certain types of natural language constructions (generally disregarded in philosophical literature) cannot be analysed without positing intentional objects. At the same time, those intentional objects do not come for (...)
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  13. Massimiliano Carrara & Enrico Martino (2011). On the Infinite in Mereology with Plural Quantification. Review of Symbolic Logic 4 (1):54-62.score: 18.0
    In Lewis reconstructs set theory using mereology and plural quantification (MPQ). In his recontruction he assumes from the beginning that there is an infinite plurality of atoms, whose size is equivalent to that of the set theoretical universe. Since this assumption is far beyond the basic axioms of mereology, it might seem that MPQ do not play any role in order to guarantee the existence of a large infinity of objects. However, we intend to demonstrate that mereology and plural (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  14. Stephen Donaho (2002). Standard Quantification Theory in the Analysis of English. Journal of Philosophical Logic 31 (6):499-526.score: 18.0
    Standard first-order logic plus quantifiers of all finite orders ("SFOLω") faces four well-known difficulties when used to characterize the behavior of certain English quantifier phrases. All four difficulties seem to stem from the typed structure of SFOLω models. The typed structure of SFOLω models is in turn a product of an asymmetry between the meaning of names and the meaning of predicates, the element-set asymmetry. In this paper we examine a class of models in which this asymmetry of meaning is (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  15. Mark Textor (2005). Truth Via Sentential Quantification. Dialogue 44 (3):539-550.score: 18.0
    This paper is a critical evaluation of Kuenne's attempt to define truth via quantification into the position of a sentence.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  16. Takashi Yagisawa (2012). Unrestricted Quantification and Reality: Reply to Kim. [REVIEW] Acta Analytica 27 (1):77-79.score: 18.0
    In my book, Worlds and Individuals, Possible and Otherwise , I use the novel idea of modal tense to respond to a number of arguments against modal realism. Peter van Inwagen’s million-carat-diamond objection is one of them. It targets the version of modal realism by David Lewis and exploits the fact that Lewis accepts absolutely unrestricted quantification. The crux of my response is to use modal tense to neutralize absolutely unrestricted quantification. Seahwa Kim says that even when equipped (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  17. Andrea Iacona (forthcoming). Quantification and Logical Form. In Alessandro Torza (ed.), Quantifiers, Quantifiers, and Quantifiers. Springer.score: 18.0
    This paper deals with the logical form of quantified sentences. Its purpose is to elucidate one plausible sense in which quantified sentences can adequately be represented in the language of first-order logic. Section 1 introduces some basic notions drawn from general quantification theory. Section 2 outlines a crucial assumption, namely, that logical form is a matter of truth-conditions. Section 3 shows how the truth-conditions of quantified sentences can be represented in the language of first-order logic consistently with some established (...)
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  18. Juha Kontinen & Jakub Szymanik (2008). A Remark on Collective Quantification. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 17 (2):131-140.score: 18.0
    We consider collective quantification in natural language. For many years the common strategy in formalizing collective quantification has been to define the meanings of collective determiners, quantifying over collections, using certain type-shifting operations. These type-shifting operations, i.e., lifts, define the collective interpretations of determiners systematically from the standard meanings of quantifiers. All the lifts considered in the literature turn out to be definable in second-order logic. We argue that second-order definable quantifiers are probably not expressive enough to formalize (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  19. Bert Mosselmans (2008). Aristotle's Logic and the Quest for the Quantification of the Predicate. Foundations of Science 13 (3-4):195-198.score: 18.0
    This paper examines the quest for the quantification of the predicate, as discussed by W.S. Jevons, and relates it to the discussion about universals and particulars between Plato and Aristotle. We conclude that the quest for the quantification of the predicate can only be achieved by stripping the syllogism from its metaphysical heritage.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  20. Mireille Staschok (2008). Non-Traditional Squares of Predication and Quantification. Logica Universalis 2 (1):77-85.score: 18.0
    . Three logical squares of predication or quantification, which one can even extend to logical hexagons, will be presented and analyzed. All three squares are based on ideas of the non-traditional theory of predication developed by Sinowjew and Wessel. The authors also designed a non-traditional theory of quantification. It will be shown that this theory is superfluous, since it is based on an obscure difference between two kinds of quantification and one pays a high price for differentiating (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  21. John A. Barnden & Kankanahalli Srinivas (1996). Quantification Without Variables in Connectionism. Minds and Machines 6 (2):173-201.score: 18.0
    Connectionist attention to variables has been too restricted in two ways. First, it has not exploited certain ways of doing without variables in the symbolic arena. One variable-avoidance method, that of logical combinators, is particularly well established there. Secondly, the attention has been largely restricted to variables in long-term rules embodied in connection weight patterns. However, short-lived bodies of information, such as sentence interpretations or inference products, may involve quantification. Therefore short-lived activation patterns may need to achieve the effect (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  22. Patrick Dieveney (2013). Quantification and Metaphysical Discourse. Theoria 80 (2).score: 18.0
    It is common in metaphysical discourse to make claims like “Everything is self-identical” in which “everything” is intended to range over everything. This sort of “unrestricted” generality appears central to metaphysical discourse. But there is debate whether such generality, which appears to involve quantification over an all-inclusive domain, is even meaningful. To address this concern, Shaughan Lavine and Vann McGee supply competing accounts of the generality expressed by this use of “everything.” I argue that, from the perspective of the (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  23. James Franklin, Accountancy and the Quantification of Rights: Giving Moral Values Legal Teeth. Centre for an Ethical Society Papers.score: 18.0
    If a company’s share price rises when it sacks workers, or when it makes money from polluting the environment, it would seem that the accounting is not being done correctly. Real costs are not being paid. People’s ethical claims, which in a smaller-scale case would be legally enforceable, are not being measured in such circumstances. This results from a mismatch between the applied ethics tradition and the practice of the accounting profession. Applied ethics has mostly avoided quantification of rights, (...)
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  24. Salvatore Florio (forthcoming). Unrestricted Quantification. Philosophy Compass.score: 18.0
    Semantic interpretations of both natural and formal languages are usually taken to involve the specification of a domain of entities with respect to which the sentences of the language are to be evaluated. A question that has received much attention of late is whether there is unrestricted quantification, quantification over a domain comprising absolutely everything there is. Is there a discourse or inquiry that has absolute generality? After framing the debate, this article provides an overview of the main (...)
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  25. Peter Hallman (2009). Proportions in Time: Interactions of Quantification and Aspect. [REVIEW] Natural Language Semantics 17 (1):29-61.score: 18.0
    Proportional quantification and progressive aspect interact in English in revealing ways. This paper investigates these interactions and draws conclusions about the semantics of the progressive and telicity. In the scope of the progressive, the proportion named by a proportionality quantifier (e.g. most in The software was detecting most errors) must hold in every subevent of the event so described, indicating that a predicate in the scope of the progressive is interpreted as an internally homogeneous activity. Such an activity interpretation (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  26. Gregory McColm (2004). Guarded Quantification in Least Fixed Point Logic. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 13 (1):61-110.score: 18.0
    We develop a variant of Least Fixed Point logic based on First Orderlogic with a relaxed version of guarded quantification. We develop aGame Theoretic Semantics of this logic, and find that under reasonableconditions, guarding quantification does not reduce the expressibilityof Least Fixed Point logic. But we also find that the guarded version ofa least fixed point algorithm may have a greater time complexity thanthe unguarded version, by a linear factor.
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  27. Adrian Brasoveanu (2013). The Grammar of Quantification and the Fine Structure of Interpretation Contexts. Synthese 190 (15):3001-3051.score: 16.0
    Providing a compositional interpretation procedure for discourses in which descriptions of complex dependencies between interrelated objects are incrementally built is a key challenge for formal theories of natural language interpretation. This paper examines several quantificational phenomena and argues that to account for these phenomena, we need richly structured contexts of interpretation that are passed on between different parts of the same sentence and also across sentential boundaries. The main contribution of the paper is showing how we can add structure to (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  28. Gabriel Uzquiano (forthcoming). Quantification and Quantifiers. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.score: 15.0
  29. Saul A. Kripke (2013). Fregean Quantification Theory. Journal of Philosophical Logic:1-3.score: 15.0
    Frege’s system of first-order logic is presented in a contemporary framework. The system described is distinguished by economy of expression and an unusual syntax.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  30. Sarah-Jane Leslie (2008). 'If', 'Unless', and Quantification. In R. Stainton & C. Viger (eds.), Compositionality, Context, and Semantic Values.score: 15.0
    Higginbotham (1986) argues that conditionals embedded under quantifiers (as in ‘no student will succeed if they goof off’) constitute a counterexample to the thesis that natural language is semantically compositional. More recently, Higginbotham (2003) and von Fintel and Iatridou (2002) have suggested that compositionality can be upheld, but only if we assume the validity of the principle of Conditional Excluded Middle. I argue that these authors’ proposals (...)
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  31. Emmon Bach, Eloise Jelinek, Angelika Kratzer & Barbara Partee (eds.) (1995). Quantification in Natural Languages. Kluwer.score: 15.0
    This extended collection of papers is the result of putting recent ideas on quantification to work on a wide variety of languages.
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  32. John-Michael Kuczynski (2010). Boguslawski's Analysis of Quantification in Natural Language. Journal of Pragmatics 42 (10):2836-2844.score: 15.0
    The semantic rules governing natural language quantifiers (e.g. "all," "some," "most") neither coincide with nor resemble the semantic rules governing the analogues of those expressions that occur in the artificial languages used by semanticists. Some semanticists, e.g. Peter Strawson, have put forth data-consistent hypotheses as to the identities of the semantic rules governing some natural-language quantifiers. But, despite their obvious merits, those hypotheses have been universally rejected. In this paper, it is shown that those hypotheses are indeed correct. Moreover, data-consistent (...)
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  33. Paul Dekker (2008). A Multi-Dimensional Treatment of Quantification in Extraordinary English. Linguistics and Philosophy 31 (1):101-127.score: 15.0
    In this paper I revive two important formal approaches to the interpretation of natural language, that of Montague and that of Karttunen and Peters. Armed with insights from dynamic semantics (Heim, Krifka) the two turn out to stand up against age-old criticisms in an orthodox fashion. The plan is mainly methodological, as I only want to illustrate the technical feasibility of the revived proposals. Even so, there are illuminating and welcome empirical consequences on the subject of scope islands (as discussed (...)
    Direct download (9 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  34. T. S. Weston (1974). Theories Whose Quantification Cannot Be Substitutional. Noûs 8 (4):361-369.score: 15.0
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  35. Kirsten I. Dunn, Robert D. Goldney, Eleonora Dal Grande & Anne Taylor (2009). Quantification and Examination of Depression‐Related Mental Health Literacy. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 15 (4):650-653.score: 15.0
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  36. Dwight E. Erlick & Robert G. Mills (1967). Perceptual Quantification of Conditional Dependency. Journal of Experimental Psychology 73 (1):9.score: 15.0
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  37. João Rasga, Wafik Boulos Lotfallah & Cristina Sernadas (2013). Completeness and Interpolation of Almost‐Everywhere Quantification Over Finitely Additive Measures. Mathematical Logic Quarterly 59 (4-5):286-302.score: 15.0
    No categories
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  38. Maria Bittner (1995). Quantification in Eskimo: A Challenge for Compositional Semantics. In E. Bach, E. Jelinek, A. Kratzer & B. Partee (eds.), Quantification in Natural Languages. Kluwer. 59--80.score: 13.0
    This paper describes quantificational structures in Greenlandic Eskimo (Kalaallisut), a language where familiar quantificational meanings are expressed in ways that are quite different from English. Evidence from this language thus poses some formidable challenges for cross-linguistic theories of compositional semantics.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  39. Daniel Z. Korman (2007). Unrestricted Composition and Restricted Quantification. Philosophical Studies 140 (3):319-334.score: 12.0
    Many of those who accept the universalist thesis that mereological composition is unrestricted also maintain that the folk typically restrict their quantifiers in such a way as to exclude strange fusions when they say things that appear to conflict with universalism. Despite its prima facie implausibility, there are powerful arguments for universalism. By contrast, there is remarkably little evidence for the thesis that strange fusions are excluded from the ordinary domain of quantification. Furthermore, this reconciliatory strategy seems hopeless when (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  40. Kareem Khalifa (2013). Is Understanding Explanatory or Objectual? Synthese 190 (6):1153-1171.score: 12.0
    Jonathan Kvanvig has argued that “objectual” understanding, i.e. the understanding we have of a large body of information, cannot be reduced to explanatory concepts. In this paper, I show that Kvanvig fails to establish this point, and then propose a framework for reducing objectual understanding to explanatory understanding.
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  41. Kit Fine (2007). Relatively Unrestricted Quantification. In Agustín Rayo & Gabriel Uzquiano (eds.), Absolute Generality. Oxford University Press. 20--44.score: 12.0
    There are four broad grounds upon which the intelligibility of quantification over absolutely everything has been questioned—one based upon the existence of semantic indeterminacy, another on the relativity of ontology to a conceptual scheme, a third upon the necessity of sortal restriction, and the last upon the possibility of indefinite extendibility. The argument from semantic indeterminacy derives from general philosophical considerations concerning our understanding of language. For the Skolem–Lowenheim Theorem appears to show that an understanding of quanti- fication over (...)
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  42. J. Adam Carter & Emma C. Gordon (forthcoming). On Pritchard, Objectual Understanding and the Value Problem. American Philosophical Quarterly.score: 12.0
    Duncan Pritchard (2008, 2009, 2010, forthcoming) has argued for an elegant solution to what have been called the value problems for knowledge at the forefront of recent literature on epistemic value. As Pritchard sees it, these problems dissolve once it is recognized that that it is understanding-why, not knowledge, that bears the distinctive epistemic value often (mistakenly) attributed to knowledge. A key element of Pritchard’s revisionist argument is the claim that understanding-why always involves what he calls strong cognitive achievement—viz., cognitive (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  43. Tim Crane, Existence and Quantification Reconsidered.score: 12.0
    The currently standard philosophical conception of existence makes a connection between three things: certain ways of talking about existence and being in natural language; certain natural language idioms of quantification; and the formal representation of these in logical languages. Thus a claim like ‘Prime numbers exist’ is treated as equivalent to ‘There is at least one prime number’ and this is in turn equivalent to ‘Some thing is a prime number’. The verb ‘exist’, the verb phrase ‘there is’ and (...)
    Translate to English
    |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  44. Tobias Rosefeldt (2008). 'That'-Clauses and Non-Nominal Quantification. Philosophical Studies 137 (3):301 - 333.score: 12.0
    This paper argues that ‘that’-clauses are not singular terms (without denying that their semantical values are propositions). In its first part, three arguments are presented to support the thesis, two of which are defended against recent criticism. The two good arguments are based on the observation that substitution of ‘the proposition that p’ for ‘that p’ may result in ungrammaticality. The second part of the paper is devoted to a refutation of the main argument for the claim that ‘that’-clauses are (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  45. Shaughan Lavine (2000). Quantification and Ontology. Synthese 124 (1-2):1-43.score: 12.0
    Quineans have taken the basic expression of ontological commitment to be an assertion of the form '' x '', assimilated to theEnglish ''there is something that is a ''. Here I take the existential quantifier to be introduced, not as an abbreviation for an expression of English, but via Tarskian semantics. I argue, contrary to the standard view, that Tarskian semantics in fact suggests a quite different picture: one in which quantification is of a substitutional type apparently first proposed (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  46. Hanoch Ben-yami (2009). Plural Quantification Logic: A Critical Appraisal. Review of Symbolic Logic 2 (1):208-232.score: 12.0
    I first show that most authors who developed Plural Quantification Logic (PQL) argued it could capture various features of natural language better than can other logic systems. I then show that it fails to do so: it radically departs from natural language in two of its essential features; namely, in distinguishing plural from singular quantification and in its use of an relation. Next, I sketch a different approach that is more adequate than PQL for capturing plural aspects of (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  47. Gabriel Uzquiano (2003). Plural Quantification and Classes. Philosophia Mathematica 11 (1):67-81.score: 12.0
    When viewed as the most comprehensive theory of collections, set theory leaves no room for classes. But the vocabulary of classes, it is argued, provides us with compact and, sometimes, irreplaceable formulations of largecardinal hypotheses that are prominent in much very important and very interesting work in set theory. Fortunately, George Boolos has persuasively argued that plural quantification over the universe of all sets need not commit us to classes. This paper suggests that we retain the vocabulary of classes, (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  48. Ruth Barcan Marcus (1962). Interpreting Quantification. Inquiry 5 (1-4):252 – 259.score: 12.0
    Alternative readings of quantification are considered. The absence of an unequivocal translation into ordinary speech is noted. Some examples are cited which, in the opinion of the author, are a result of equivocal readings of quantification, or unnecessarily restrictive readings which obscure its primary function.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  49. Maria Bittner & Naja Trondhjem (2008). Quantification as Reference: Evidence From Q-Verbs. In Lisa Matthewson (ed.), Quantification: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Emerald. 2--7.score: 12.0
    Formal semantics has so far focused on three categories of quantifiers, to wit, Q-determiners (e.g. 'every'), Q-adverbs (e.g. 'always'), and Q-auxiliaries (e.g. 'would'). All three can be analyzed in terms of tripartite logical forms (LF). This paper presents evidence from verbs with distributive affixes (Q-verbs), in Kalaallisut, Polish, and Bininj Gun-wok, which cannot be analyzed in terms of tripartite LFs. It is argued that a Q-verb involves discourse reference to a distributive verbal dependency, i.e. an episode-valued function that sends different (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  50. Øystein Linnebo (2006). Sets, Properties, and Unrestricted Quantification. In Gabriel Uzquiano & Agustin Rayo (eds.), Absolute Generality. Oxford University Press.score: 12.0
    Call a quantifier unrestricted if it ranges over absolutely all things: not just over all physical things or all things relevant to some particular utterance or discourse but over absolutely everything there is. Prima facie, unrestricted quantification seems to be perfectly coherent. For such quantification appears to be involved in a variety of claims that all normal human beings are capable of understanding. For instance, some basic logical and mathematical truths appear to involve unrestricted quantification, such as (...)
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
1 — 50 / 1000