scholarly journals DECOMPOSING GENERALIZED QUANTIFIERS

2008 ◽  
Vol 1 (3) ◽  
pp. 355-371 ◽  
Author(s):  
DAG WESTERSTÅHL

This note explains the circumstances under which a type 〈1〉 quantifier can be decomposed into a type 〈1, 1〉 quantifier and a set, by fixing the first argument of the former to the latter. The motivation comes from the semantics of Noun Phrases (also called Determiner Phrases) in natural languages, but in this article, I focus on the logical facts. However, my examples are taken among quantifiers appearing in natural languages, and at the end, I sketch two more principled linguistic applications.

Author(s):  
Ana Müller

This paper investigates what the semantics of generic sentences in Brazilian Portuguese (BP) says about the denotation of Noun Phrases in that language. More specifically, it addresses the syntactic and semantic differences among the indefinite nominals that get a generic interpretation in BP. The paper may also be taken to test well-known hypotheses about the functioning of genericity in natural languages.


2016 ◽  
Vol 30 ◽  
pp. 251-264
Author(s):  
Simon Pauw ◽  
Joseph Hilferty

The present paper proposes an operational semantic model of natural language quantifiers (e.g., many, some, three) and their use in quantified noun phrases. To this end we use embodied artificial agents that communicate in and interact with the physical world. We argue that existing paradigms such as Generalized Quantifiers (Barwise and Cooper 1981; Montague 1973) and Fuzzy Quantifiers (Zadeh 1983) do not provide a satisfactory models for our situated-interaction scenarios and propose a more adequate semantic model, based on fuzzy-quantification.


1993 ◽  
Vol 58 (1) ◽  
pp. 314-325 ◽  
Author(s):  
Edward L. Keenan

AbstractRecent work in natural language semantics leads to some new observations on generalized quantifiers. In §1 we show that English quantifiers of type 〈1, 1〉 are booleanly generated by theirgeneralized universalandgeneralized existentialmembers. These two classes also constitute thesortally reduciblemembers of this type.Section 2 presents our main result — the Generalized Prefix Theorem (GPT). This theorem characterizes the conditions under which formulas of the form (Q1x1…QnxnRx1…xnandq1x1…qnxnRx1…xnare logically equivalent for arbitrary generalized quantifiersQi,qi. GPT generalizes, perhaps in an unexpectedly strong form, the Linear Prefix Theorem (appropriately modified) of Keisler & Walkoe (1973).


Author(s):  
Barbara Abbott

This paper is about definiteness, and more specifically about the difficulties involved in getting clear on which noun phrases should be classified as definite, or more properly, which have uses which can be so classified. A number of possibilities are considered. First we consider some traditional proposals—those analyzing definiteness in terms of strength, uniqueness, or familiarity. Following that, three more recent proposals are presented, which have been put forward in the wake of Montague’s analysis of NPs as generalized quantifiers—those proposed by Jon Barwise and Robin Cooper (1981), Barbara Partee (1986), and Sebastian Löbner (2000). The tentative conclusion is that Russell’s uniqueness characteristic (suitably modified) holds up well against the others.


2008 ◽  
Vol 31 (5) ◽  
pp. 534-535
Author(s):  
Maggie Tallerman

AbstractChristiansen & Chater (C&C) suggest that language is itself an evolutionary system, and that natural languages “evolve” to be easy to learn and process. The tight economy of the world's case-marking systems lends support to this hypothesis. Only two major case systems occur, cross-linguistically, and noun phrases are seldom overtly case-marked wherever zero-marking would be functionally practical.


Author(s):  
Thomas G. Pavel

Recent linguistic research has explored the possibility of using standard logical analyses to explain some phenomena of natural languages. The logical notion of scope in modal contexts has yielded to the linguistic dichotomy of [±specific] indefinite NPs. Donnellan’s (1966) distinction between referential and attributive uses of definite description has been used to extend this dichotomy to include definite NPs. The behaviour of moods in Romance subordinate clauses has been tentatively explained by the same notions.The purpose of this paper is to criticize some of these attempts to apply logical analyses to natural languages. Without denying the heuristic and even the explanatory value of standard logical analysis in linguistics, I will try to show that the correspondence between logical semantic notions and the categories of natural languages is much more approximate than is sometimes believed.


2017 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 28-43
Author(s):  
Amani Lusekelo

This paper articulates the syntactic properties of nouns in Swahili in relation to functional projections which are associated with both concord in determiner phrases and agreement in inflectional phrases. With regards to realisation of syntactic properties in Bantu noun phrases, three claims had been suggested based on different approaches, vis-à-vis the use of pre-prefix to denote discourse-based information about (in)definiteness, indication of phi-features in minimalist syntax by using the nominal prefix, and determination by demonstratives and possessives as supported by head proximity principle. Findings from Swahili texts point towards the fact that bare nouns receive either definite interpretation or indefinite reading depending on the context of communication. Therefore, the definite–indefinite distinction is not provided by physical linguistic materials, but by discourse-based contexts. Even when a demonstrative and/or possessive is used, it is the context of communication which situates the specific referent rather than the lexical entities. Findings indicate that the choice between demonstratives and possessives in determinations of Swahili NPs is also context bound.


Author(s):  
Dag Westerstahl

Generalized quantifiers are logical tools with a wide range of uses. As the term indicates, they generalize the ordinary universal and existential quantifiers from first-order logic, ‘∀x’ and ‘∃x’, which apply to a formula A(x), binding its free occurrences of x. ∀xA(x) says that A(x) holds for all objects in the universe and ∃xA(x) says that A(x) holds for some objects in the universe, that is, in each case, that a certain condition on A(x) is satisfied. It is natural then to consider other conditions, such as ‘for at least five’, ‘at most ten’, ‘infinitely many’ and ‘most’. So a quantifier Q stands for a condition on A(x), or, more precisely, for a property of the set denoted by that formula, such as the property of being non-empty, being infinite, or containing more than half of the elements of the universe. The addition of such quantifiers to a logical language may increase its expressive power. A further generalization allows Q to apply to more than one formula, so that, for example, Qx(A(x),B(x)) states that a relation holds between the sets denoted by A(x) and B(x), say, the relation of having the same number of elements, or of having a non-empty intersection. One also considers quantifiers binding more than one variable in a formula. Qxy,zu(R(x,y),S(z,u)) could express, for example, that the relation (denoted by) R(x,y) contains twice as many pairs as S(z,u), or that R(x,y) and S(z,u) are isomorphic graphs. In general, then, a quantifier (the attribute ‘generalized’ is often dropped) is syntactically a variable-binding operator, which stands semantically for a relation between relations (on individuals), that is, a second-order relation. Quantifiers are studied in mathematical logic, and have also been applied in other areas, notably in the semantics of natural languages. This entry first presents some of the main logical facts about generalized quantifiers, and then explains their application to semantics.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document