Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Independent Set Readings and Generalized Quantifiers

  • Published:
Journal of Philosophical Logic Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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 proposal made in Sher (J Philos Logic 26:1–43, 1997) in order to properly represent the meaning of IS readings involving NL quantifiers. The solution proposed here allows to uniformly deal with both standard linear and IS readings, regardless of their actual existence in NL or quantifiers’ monotonicity. Sentences featuring nested quantifications are particularly problematic. By avoiding parallel nested quantification in the formulae, the proper true values are achieved.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Alshawi, H. (1992). The core language engine. Cambridge: MIT.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Bach, E. (1981). On time, tense, and aspect: An essay in English metaphysics. In P. Cole (Ed.), Radical pragmatics (pp. 63–81). New York: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Barwise, J. (1979). On branching quantifiers in English. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 8, 47–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Barwise, J., & Cooper, R. (1981). Generalized quantifiers and natural language. Linguistics and Philosophy, 4(2), 159–219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Beck, S., & Sauerland, U. (2000). Cumulation is needed: A reply to winter (2000). Natural Language Semantics, 8(4), 349–371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Beghelli, F., Ben-Shalom, D., & Szabolski, A. (1997). Variation, distributivity, and the illusion of branching. In A. Szabolcsi (Ed.), Ways of scope taking (pp. 29–69). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Boolos, G. (1984). To be is to be a value of a variable. In Logic, logic, and logic (reprinted). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Bosco, C. (2004). A grammatical relation system for treebank annotation. Ph.D. thesis, Turin University, Italy.

  9. Bunt, H. (1985). Mass terms and model-theoretic semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Carpenter, B. (1997). Type-logical semantics. Cambridge: MIT.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Chaves, R. P. (2007). Coordinate structures—Constraint-based syntax-semantics processing. Ph.D. thesis, University of Lisbon, Portugal.

  12. Clark, S., & Curran, J. (2007). Wide-coverage efficient statistical parsing with CCG and log-linear models. Computational Linguistics, 33(4), 493–552.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Dalrymple, M. (2001). Lexical functional grammar. New York: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Davies, M. (1989). Two examiners marked six scripts. Interpretations of numerically quantified sentences. Linguistics and Philosophy, 12(3), 293–323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Debusmann, R. (2006). Extensible dependency grammar: A modular grammar formalism based on multigraph description. Ph.D. thesis, Saarland University, Germany.

  16. Eklund, M., & Kolak, D. (2002). Is Hintikka’s logic first order? Synthese: An International Journal for the Methodology, Epistemology, and Philosophy of Science, 131(5), 371–388.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Fauconnier, G. (1975). Do quantifiers branch? Linguistic Inquiry, 6, 555–578.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Farkas, D. (2001). Dependent indefinites and direct scope. In C. Condoravdi, & G. Renardel (Eds.), Logical perspectives on language and information. CSLI lecture notes (pp. 41–72). Stanford: CSLI.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Fodor, J., & Sag, I. (1982). Referential and quantificational indefinites. Linguistics and Philosophy, 5, 355–398.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Gabbay, D., & Moravcsik, J. M. E. (1974). Branching quantifiers, English and Montague grammar. Theoretical Linguistics, 1, 140–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Gierasimczuk, N., & Szymanik, J. (2007). Hintikka’s thesis revisited. Abstract from logic colloquium 2006. The Bulletin of Symbolic Logic, 13.

  22. Gil, D. (1982). Quantifier scope, linguistic variation, and natural language semantics. Linguistics and Philosophy, 5(4), 421–472.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Guenthner, F., & Hoepelman, J. (1982). A note on the representation of branching quantifiers. Theoretical Linguistics, 3, 285–289.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Henkin, L. (1961). Some remarks on infinitely long formulas. In Finitistic methods, proceedings. Symphosium of foundations math (pp. 167–183). Oxford: Pergamon.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Hintikka, J. (1973). Quantifiers vs quantification theory. Dialectica, 27, 329–358.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Hobbs, J. (1998). The logical notation: Ontological promiscuity. In Discourse and inference, Chapter 2. http://www.isi.edu/~hobbs/disinf-tc.html.

  27. Hoji, H. (1985). Logical form constraints and configurational structure in Japanese. Ph.D. thesis, University of Washington, Seattle.

  28. Hudson, R. (1990). English word grammar. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Keenan, E., & Westerståhl, D. (1997). Generalized quantifiers in linguistics and logic. In J. van Benthem, & A. ter Meulen (Eds.), Handbook of logic and language (pp. 837–893). Cambridge: MIT.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  30. Kempson, R. M., & Cormak, A. (1981). Ambiguity and quantification. Linguistics and Philosophy, 4(2), 259–309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Kratzer, A. (1998) Scope or pseudo-scope: Are there wide-scope indefinites? In S. Rothstein (Ed.), Events in grammar (pp. 163–196). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Krifka, M. (1986). Nominalreferenz und Zeitkonstitution. Zur semantik von Massentermen, Pluraltermen and Aspektklassen. Ph.D. thesis, University of Munich, Germany.

  33. Kroch, A. (1974). The semantics of scope in English. Ph.D. thesis, MIT Dissertation.

  34. Kurtzman, H. S., & MacDonald, M. C. (1993). Resolution of quantifier scope ambiguities. Cognition, 48, 243–279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Joshi, A., & Kallmeyer, L. (2003). Factoring predicate argument and scope semantics: Underspecified semantics with LTAG. Research on Language and Computation, 1, 3–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Landman, F. (1989). Groups. Linguistics and Philosophy, 12, 559–605.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Lasersohn, P. (1995). Plurality, conjunction and events. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Link, G. (1983). The logical analysis of plurals and mass terms. In R. Bauerle, C. Schwarze, & A. von Stechow (Eds.), Meaning, use, and interpretation in language (pp. 302–323). Berlin: de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Liu, F. (1990). Scope dependency in English and Chinese. Ph.D. thesis, UCLA.

  40. Liu, F. (1992). Branching quantification and scope independence. In J. van der Does & J. van Eijck (Eds.), Generalized quantifier theory and applications (pp. 297–331). Chicago: CSLI/University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Robert, M. (1989). Interpreting logical form. Linguistics and Philosophy, 12(4), 387–437.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. May, R., & Bale, A. (2005). Inverse linking. In M. Everaert, & H. van Riemsdijk (Eds.), The Blackwell companion to syntax. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Matthewson, L. (1999). On the interpretation of wide scope indefinites. Natural Language Semantics, 7, 79–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Mel’cuk, I. (1988). Dependency syntax: Theory and practice. New York: SUNY University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Moran, D. B. (1988). Quantifier scoping in the SRI core language engine. In Proceedings of the 26th annual meeting on association for computational linguistics (pp. 33–40). Buffalo, New York.

  46. Miya, S. (1997). Against optional scrambling. Linguistic Inquiry, 28, 1–25.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Mostowski, A. (1957). On a generalization of quantifiers. Fundamenta Mathematicae, 44, 12–36.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Naka, M. (1993). Scrambling and scope in Japanese. In P. Clancy (Ed.), Japanese/Korean linguistics (Vol. 2, 283–298). Palo Alto: Stanford Linguistics Association.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Park, J. (1996). A lexical theory of quantification in ambiguous query interpretation. Ph.D. thesis, University of Pennsylvania, USA.

  50. Partee, B. (1985). Some thoughts about quantifier scope ambiguities. University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

  51. Peters, S., & Westerståhl, D. (2006). Quantifiers in language and logic. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Reinhart, T. (1997). Quantifier-scope: How labor is divided between QR and choice functions. Linguistics and Philosophy, 20, 335–397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Robaldo, L. (2007). Dependency tree semantics. Ph.D. thesis, Turin University, Italy.

  54. Roberts, C. (1987). Modal subordination, anaphora and distributivity. Ph.D. thesis, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.

  55. Scha, R. (1981). Distributive, collective and cumulative quantification. In J. Groenendijk, T. Janssen, & M. Stokhof (Eds.), Formal methods in the study of language, part 2 (pp. 483–512). Amsterdam: Mathematisch Centrum.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Schein, B. (1993). Plurals and events. Cambridge: MIT.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Schlenker, P. (2006). Scopal independence: A note on branching and island-escaping readings of indefinites and disjunctions. Journal of Semantics, 23(3), 281–314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Sher, G. (1990). Ways of branching quantifiers. Linguistics and Philosophy, 13, 393–422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Sher, G. (1997). Partially-ordered (branching) generalized quantifiers: A general definition. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 26, 1–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Steedman, M. (2000). The syntactic process. Cambridge: MIT.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Steedman, M. (2007). The grammar of scope, forthcoming (see Surface-compositional scope-alternation without existential quantifiers. Draft 5.2, Sept 2007. ftp://ftp.cogsci.ed.ac.uk/pub/steedman/quantifiers/journal6.pdf). Accessed 25 Sep 2007.

  62. Sternefeld, W. (1998). Reciprocity and cumulative predication. Natural Language Semantics, 6, 303–337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Tunstall, S. L. (1998). The interpretation of quantifiers: Semantics and processing. Ph.D. thesis, University of Massachusetts, USA.

  64. van Benthem, J. (1989). Polyadic quantifiers. Linguistics and Philosophy, 12, 437–464.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. van der Does, J. (1993). Sums and quantifiers. Linguistics and Philosophy, 16, 509–550.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. van der Does, J. (1994). On complex plural noun phrases. In M. Kanazawa, & C. Pinon (Eds.), Dynamics, polarity and quantification. CSLI lecture notes (pp. 81–115). Stanford: CSLI.

    Google Scholar 

  67. van der Does, J., & Verkuyl, H. (1996). Quantification and predication. In S. Peters, & K. van Deemter (Eds.), Semantic ambiguity and underspecification. CSLI lecture notes (pp. 27–54). Stanford: CSLI.

    Google Scholar 

  68. Villalta, E. (2003). The role of context in the resolution of quantifier scope ambiguities. Journal of Semantics, 20(2), 115–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Westerståhl, D. (1987). Branching generalized quantifiers and natural language. In P. Gärdenfors (Ed.), Generalized quantifiers: Linguistic and logical approaches (pp. 269–298). Dordrecht: Reidel.

    Google Scholar 

  70. Winter, Y. (1997). Choice functions and the scopal semantics of indefinites. Linguistics and Philosophy, 20(4), 399–467.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Winter, Y. (2000). Distributivity and dependency. Natural Language Semantics, 8, 27–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Winter, Y. (2004). Functional quantification. Research on Language and Computation, 2, 331–363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computer Science, University of Turin, Corso Svizzera 185, 10149, Torino, Italy

    Livio Robaldo

Authors
  1. Livio Robaldo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Livio Robaldo.

Additional information

This work has partially been funded by the project “TOCAI.IT: Knowledge-oriented technologies for enterprise aggregation in Internet” (RBNE05BFRK) of the Italian Ministry for University and Research (MIUR).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Robaldo, L. Independent Set Readings and Generalized Quantifiers. J Philos Logic 39, 23–58 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10992-009-9105-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10992-009-9105-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation