The paper proposes the first unified account of deictic/sentence-external and sentence-internal readings of singular different . The empirical motivation for such an account is provided by a cross-linguistic survey and an analysis of the differences in distribution and interpretation between singular different , plural different and same (singular or plural) in English. The main proposal is that distributive quantification temporarily makes available two discourse referents within its nuclear scope, the values of which are required by sentence-internal uses of singular different (...) to be distinct, much as its deictic uses require the values of two discourse referents to be distinct. Thus, we take sentence-internal readings to be a form of ‘association with distributivity’ that is similar to association with focus. The contrast between singular different , plural different and same is explained in terms of several kinds of quantificational distributors that license their internal readings. The analysis is executed in a stack-based dynamic system couched in type logic, so we get compositionality in the usual Montagovian way. Quantificational subordination and dependent indefinites in various languages provide additional motivation for the account. Investigating the connections between items with sentence-internal readings and the quantificational licensors of these readings opens up a larger project of formally investigating (i) the typology of quantificational distributors and distributivity-dependent items and (ii) the fine-grained contexts of evaluation needed to capture this typological variation. (shrink)

It has been suggested that a substitutional semantics for quantification theory lends itself to nominalistic aims. I should like in this paper to explore that claim.

This volume on the semantic complexity of natural language explores the question why some sentences are more difficult than others. While doing so, it lays the groundwork for extending semantic theory with computational and cognitive aspects by combining linguistics and logic with computations and cognition. -/- Quantifier expressions occur whenever we describe the world and communicate about it. Generalized quantifier theory is therefore one of the basic tools of linguistics today, studying the possible meanings and the inferential power (...) of quantifier expressions by logical means. The classic version was developed in the 1980s, at the interface of linguistics, mathematics and philosophy. Before this volume, advances in "classic" generalized quantifier theory mainly focused on logical questions and their applications to linguistics, this volume adds a computational component, the third pillar of language use and logical activity. This book is essential reading for researchers in linguistics, philosophy, cognitive science, logic, AI, and computer science. (shrink)

We study the computational complexity of the model checking problem for quantifier-free dependence logic ${(\mathcal{D})}$ formulas. We characterize three thresholds in the complexity: logarithmic space (LOGSPACE), non-deterministic logarithmic space (NL) and non-deterministic polynomial time (NP).

This paper establishes model-theoretic properties of \, a variation of monadic first-order logic that features the generalised quantifier \. We will also prove analogous versions of these results in the simpler setting of monadic first-order logic with and without equality and \, respectively). For each logic \ we will show the following. We provide syntactically defined fragments of \ characterising four different semantic properties of \-sentences: being monotone and continuous in a given set of monadic predicates; having truth preserved (...) under taking submodels or being truth invariant under taking quotients. In each case, we produce an effectively defined map that translates an arbitrary sentence \ to a sentence \ belonging to the corresponding syntactic fragment, with the property that \ is equivalent to \ precisely when it has the associated semantic property. As a corollary of our developments, we obtain that the four semantic properties above are decidable for \-sentences. (shrink)

This paper presents three explanations of why Frege took the universal, rather than the existential, quantifier as primitive in his formalization of logic. The first two explanations provide technical reasons related to how Frege formalizes the logic of truth-functions and the logic of quantification. The third, philosophical explanation locates the reason in Frege's logicist goal of analyzing arithmetical concepts---especially the concepts of 0 and 1---in purely logical terms.

We consider the notion of bounded m-ary patch-width defined in [9], and its very close relative m-constructibility defined below. We show that the notions of m-constructibility all coincide for m ≥ 3, while 1-constructibility is a weaker notion. The same holds for bounded m-ary patch-width. The case m = 2 is left open.

In this note we show that the so-called weakly extensional arithmetic in all finite types, which is based on a quantifier-free rule of extensionality due to C. Spector and which is of significance in the context of Gödel"s functional interpretation, does not satisfy the deduction theorem for additional axioms. This holds already for Π0 1-axioms. Previously, only the failure of the stronger deduction theorem for deductions from (possibly open) assumptions (with parameters kept fixed) was known.

Despite overwhelming evidence suggesting that quantifier scope is a phenomenon that must be treated at the pragmatic level, most computational treatments of scope ambiguities have thus far been a collection of syntactically motivated preference rules. This might be in part due to the prevailing wisdom that a commonsense inferencing strategy would require the storage of and reasoning with a vast amount of background knowledge. In this paper we hope to demonstrate that the challenge in developing a commonsense inferencing strategy (...) is in the discovery of the relevant commonsense data and in a proper formulation of the inferencing strategy itself, and that a massive amount of background knowledge is not always required. In particular, we present a very effective procedure for resolving quantifier scope ambiguities at the pragmatic level using simple quantitative data that is readily available in most database environments. (shrink)

This paper is devoted to the study of some subvarieties of the variety Q of Q-Heyting algebras, that is, Heyting algebras with a quantifier. In particular, a deeper investigation is carried out in the variety Q subscript 3 of three-valued Q-Heyting algebras to show that the structure of the lattice of subvarieties of Q is far more complicated that the lattice of subvarieties of Heyting algebras. We determine the simple and subdirectly irreducible algebras in Q subscript 3 and we (...) construct the lattice of subvarieties lambda (Q subscript 3) of the variety Q subscript 3. (shrink)

This paper is devoted to the study of some subvarieties of the variety Qof Q-Heyting algebras, that is, Heyting algebras with a quantifier. In particular, a deeper investigation is carried out in the variety Q 3 of three-valued Q-Heyting algebras to show that the structure of the lattice of subvarieties of Qis far more complicated that the lattice of subvarieties of Heyting algebras. We determine the simple and subdirectly irreducible algebras in Q 3 and we construct the lattice of (...) subvarieties (Q 3 ) of the variety Q 3. (shrink)

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.

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.

This paper argues that English quantifier phrases of the form ‘every F’ admit of a literal referential interpretation, contrary to the standard semantic account of this expression, according to which it denotes a set and a second-order relation. Various arguments are offered in favor of the referential interpretation, and two likely objections to it are forestalled.

This chapter offers a logical, linguistic, and philosophical account of modern quantification theory. Contrasting the standard approach to quantifiers (according to which logical quantifiers are defined by enumeration) with the generalized approach (according to which quantifiers are defined systematically), the chapter begins with a brief history of standard quantifier theory and identifies some of its logical, linguistic, and philosophical strengths and weaknesses. It then proceeds to a brief history of generalized quantifier theory and explains how it overcomes the (...) weaknesses of the standard theory. One of the main philosophical advantages of the generalized theory is its philosophically informative criterion of logicality. The chapter describes the work done so far in this theory, highlights some of its central logical results, offers an overview of its main linguistic contributions, and discusses its philosophical significance. (shrink)

We consider countable so‐called rich subsemigroups of ; each such semigroup T gives a variety CPEAT that is axiomatizable by a finite schema of equations taken in a countable subsignature of that of ω‐dimensional cylindric‐polyadic algebras with equality where substitutions are restricted to maps in T. It is shown that for any such T, if and only if is representable as a concrete set algebra of ω‐ary relations. The operations in the signature are set‐theoretically interpreted like in polyadic equality set (...) algebras, but such operations are relativized to a union of cartesian spaces that are not necessarily disjoint. This is a form of guarding semantics. We show that CPEAT is canonical and atom‐canonical. Imposing an extra condition on T, we prove that atomic algebras in CPEAT are completely representable and that CPEAT has the super amalgamation property. If T is rich and finitely represented, it is shown that CPEAT is term definitionally equivalent to a finitely axiomatizable Sahlqvist variety. Such semigroups exist. This can be regarded as a solution to the central finitizability problem in algebraic logic for first order logic with equality if we do not insist on full fledged commutativity of quantifiers. The finite dimensional case is approached from the view point of guarded and clique guarded (relativized) semantics of fragments of first order logic using finitely many variables. Both positive and negative results are presented. (shrink)

In this paper I discuss two objections raised against von Fintel’s (1994) and Stanley and Szabó’s (2000a) hidden variable approach to quantifier domain restriction (QDR). One of them concerns utterances of sentences involving quantifiers for which no contextual domain restriction is needed, and the other concerns multiple quantified contexts. I look at various ways in which the approaches could be amended to avoid these problems, and I argue that they fail. I conclude that we need a more flexible account (...) of QDR, one that allows for the hidden variables in the LF responsible for QDR to vary in number. Recanati’s (2002; 2004) approach to QDR, which makes use of the apparatus of “variadic functions”, is flexible enough to account successfully for the two phenomena discussed. I end with a few comments on what I take to be the most promising way to construe variadic functions. (shrink)

The local homogeneity property is defined as in [Mak]. We show thatL ωω(Q1) and some related logics do not have the local homogeneity property, whereas cofinality logicL ωω(Q cfω) has the homogeneity property. Both proofs use forcing and absoluteness arguments.

This essay clarifies quantifier variance and uses it to provide a theory of indefinite extensibility that I call the variance theory of indefinite extensibility. The indefinite extensibility response to the set-theoretic paradoxes sees each argument for paradox as a demonstration that we have come to a different and more expansive understanding of ‘all sets’. But indefinite extensibility is philosophically puzzling: extant accounts are either metasemantically suspect in requiring mysterious mechanisms of domain expansion, or metaphysically suspect in requiring nonstandard assumptions (...) about mathematical objects. Happily, the view of quantifier meanings that underwrites quantifier variance can be used to provide an account of indefinite extensibility that is both metasemantically and metaphysically satisfying. Section 1 introduces the puzzle of indefinite extensibility; section 2 develops and clarifies the metasemantics of quantifier variance; section 3 solves section 1's puzzle of indefinite extensibility by applying section 2's account of quantifier meanings; and section 4 compares the theory developed in section 3 to several other theories in the literature. (shrink)