Show simple item record

Quantification and Second-Order Monadicity

dc.contributor.authorPietroski, Paul
dc.date.accessioned2006-12-04T14:33:23Z
dc.date.available2006-12-04T14:33:23Z
dc.date.issued2003
dc.identifier.citationPhilosophical Perspectives 17: 259-298, 2003en
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1903/4009
dc.description.abstractThe 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'.en
dc.format.extent218194 bytes
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.language.isoen_USen
dc.publisherBlackwellen
dc.subjectsemanticsen
dc.subjectcompositionen
dc.subjectquantifiersen
dc.subjectlogicen
dc.titleQuantification and Second-Order Monadicityen
dc.typeArticleen
dc.relation.isAvailableAtCollege of Arts & Humanitiesen_us
dc.relation.isAvailableAtLinguisticsen_us
dc.relation.isAvailableAtDigital Repository at the University of Marylanden_us
dc.relation.isAvailableAtUniversity of Maryland (College Park, Md.)en_us


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record