Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T14:28:18.583Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Natural language, sortal reducibility and generalized quantifiers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2014

Edward L. Keenan*
Affiliation:
Department of Linguistics, University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California 90024, E-mail: [email protected]

Abstract

Recent 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 their generalized universal and generalized existential members. These two classes also constitute the sortally reducible members 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 (Q1x1QnxnRx1xn and q1x1qnxnRx1xn are logically equivalent for arbitrary generalized quantifiers Qi, qi. GPT generalizes, perhaps in an unexpectedly strong form, the Linear Prefix Theorem (appropriately modified) of Keisler & Walkoe (1973).

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Symbolic Logic 1993

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

[BC81]Barwise, J. and Cooper, R., Generalized quantifiers and natural language, Linguistics and Philosophy, vol. 4 (1981), pp. 159219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[BeS92]Ben-Shalom, D., A tree characterization of generalized quantifier reducibility, Cognitive Science Research Program Technical Reports, no. UCLA-CSRP-92–7, Department of Psychology, University of California at Los Angeles, 1992.Google Scholar
[Ben84]Van Benthem, J., Questions about quantifiers, this Journal, vol. 49 (1984), pp. 443466.Google Scholar
[Ben86]Van Benthem, J., Essays in logical semantics, Reidel, Dordrecht, 1986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[Ben89]Van Benthem, J., Polyadic quantifiers, Linguistics and Philosophy, vol. 12 (1989), pp. 437466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[BM85]Van Benthem, J. and Ter Meulen, A. (Editors), Generalized quantifiers in natural language, Foris, Dordrecht, 1985.Google Scholar
[Do91]Van Der Does, J., A generalized quantifier logic for naked infinitives, Linguistics and Philosophy, vol. 14 (1991), pp. 241294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[DE91]Van Der Does, J. and van Eijck, Jan, Generalized quantifiers theory and application, Dutch Network for Language, Logic and Information, Amsterdam, 1991.Google Scholar
[Ga87]Gardenfors, P. (Editor), Generalized quantifiers, Reidel, Dordrecht, 1987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[K87a]Keenan, E. L., Unreducible n-ary quantifiers in natural language, Generalized quantifiers (Gardenfors, P., editor), Reidel, Dordrecht, 1987, pp. 109150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[K87b]Keenan, E. L., Semantic case theory, reprinted in Semantics and contextual expression (R. Bartsch et al., editors), Foris, Dordrecht, 1990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[K91]Keenan, E. L., Beyond the Frege boundary, Linguistics and Philosophy, vol. 15(1992).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[KS86]Keenan, E. L. and Stavi, J., A semantic characterization of natural language determiners, Linguistics and Philosophy, vol. 9 (1986), pp. 253326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[KW73]Keisler, H. Jerome and Walkoe, W., The diversity of quantifier prefixes, this Journal, vol. 38 (1973), pp. 7985.Google Scholar
[We84]Westerstahl, D., Some results on quantifiers, Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, vol. 25, (1984), pp. 152170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[We89]Westerstahl, D., Quantifiers in formal and natural languages, Handbook of philosophical logic, vol. IV (Gabbay, D. and Guenthner, F., editors), Reidel, Dordrecht, 1989, pp. 1131.Google Scholar