<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
  <channel rdf:about="http://hdl.handle.net/1903/1624">
    <title>DRUM Collection: Linguistics Research Works</title>
    <link>http://hdl.handle.net/1903/1624</link>
    <description />
    <items>
      <rdf:Seq>
        <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://hdl.handle.net/1903/4009" />
      </rdf:Seq>
    </items>
    <dc:date>2013-06-19T08:22:44Z</dc:date>
  </channel>
  <item rdf:about="http://hdl.handle.net/1903/4009">
    <title>Quantification and Second-Order Monadicity</title>
    <link>http://hdl.handle.net/1903/4009</link>
    <description>Title: Quantification and Second-Order Monadicity
Authors: Pietroski, Paul
Abstract: The first part of this paper reviews some developments regarding the apparent mismatch between the logical and grammatical forms of quantificational constructions like 'Pat kicked every bottle'. I suggest that (even given quantifier-raising) many current theories still posit an undesirable mismatch. But all is well if we can treat determiners (words like 'every', 'no', and 'most') as second-order monadic predicates without treating them as predicates satisfied by ordered pairs of sets. Drawing on George Boolos's construal of second-order quantification as plural quantification, I argue that we can and should view determiners as predicates satisfied (plurally) by ordered pairs each of which associates an entity with a truth-value (t or f). The idea is 'every' is satisfied by some pairs iff every one of them associates its entity with t. It turns out that this provides a kind of explanation for the "conservativity" of determiners. And it lets us say that concatenation signifies predicate-conjunction even in phrases like 'every bottle' and 'no brown dog'.</description>
    <dc:date>2003-01-01T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
  </item>
</rdf:RDF>

