Abstract
This chapter is devoted to a particularly intriguing quantifier construction: branching. Branching interpretations of some natural language sentences are intractable, and therefore, their occurrence in natural language is far from obvious. I start by discussing the thesis formulated by Hintikka, which says that certain natural language sentences require nonlinear quantification to express their meaning. Then, I discuss a novel alternative reading for potentially branching sentences, the so-called two-way reading. This reading is expressible by a linear formula and is tractable. I compare the two-way reading to other possible interpretations and argue that it is the best representation for the meaning of Hintikka-like sentences. Next, I describe an experiment providing empirical support for the two-way reading. The basic assumption here is that a criterion for the adequacy of a meaning representation is its compatibility with sentence truth-conditions. This can be established by observing the linguistic behavior of language users. I report on experiments showing that people tend to interpret sentences similar to Hintikka’s sentence in a way consistent with the two-way interpretation.
Keywords
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
The idea of branching is more visible in the case of simpler quantifier prefixes, like in sentence (8) discussed in Sect. 9.3.2.
- 2.
See: Jackendoff (1972), Gabbay and Moravcsik (1974), Guenthner and Hoepelman (1976), Hintikka (1976), Stenius (1976), Barwise (1979), Bellert (1989), May (1989), Sher (1990), Mostowski (1994), Liu (1996), Beghelli et al. (1997), Janssen (2002), Mostowski and Wojtyniak (2004), Schlenker (2006), Janssen and Dechesne (2006), Gierasimczuk and Szymanik (2009). Related discussion on the ambiguity of sentences with multiple quantifiers has been vivid in the more philosophically oriented tradition (see Bach 1982; Jaszczolt 2002; Kempson and Cormack 1981a, b, 1982; May 1985; Tennant 1981).
- 3.
See Chap. 8 for more discussion of reciprocity.
- 4.
- 5.
- 6.
- 7.
See Gierasimczuk and Szymanik (2009) for details.
References
K. Bach, Semantic nonspecificity and mixed quantifiers. Linguistics and Philosophy 4(4), 593–605 (1982)
J. Barwise, On branching quantifiers in English. Journal of Philosophical Logic 8, 47–80 (1979)
Beghelli, F., Ben-Shalom, D., & Szabolcsi, A. (1997). Variation, distributivity, and the illusion of branching. In A. Szabolcsi (Ed.), Ways of Scope Taking. Studies in Linguistic and Philosophy (Vol. 65, pp. 29–69). New York: Kluwer Academic Publisher
Bellert, I. (1989). Feature System for Quantification Structures in Natural Language. Dordrecht: Foris Publications
M. Dalrymple, M. Kanazawa, Y. Kim, S. Mchombo, S. Peters, Reciprocal expressions and the concept of reciprocity. Linguistics and Philosophy 21, 159–210 (1998)
J. Edmonds, Paths, trees, and flowers. Canadian Journal of Mathematics 17, 449–467 (1965)
M. Frixione, Tractable competence. Minds and Machines 11(3), 379–397 (2001)
D.M. Gabbay, J.M.E. Moravcsik, Branching quantifiers, English and Montague grammar. Theoretical Linguistics 1, 140–157 (1974)
N. Gierasimczuk, J. Szymanik, Branching quantification vs. two-way quantification. The Journal of Semantics 26(4), 329–366 (2009)
Godziszewski, M. T., & Kalociński, D. (2015). Computational complexity of Barwise’s sentence and similar natural language constructions. In Student Session at European Summer School in Logic, Language and Computation
F. Guenthner, J.P. Hoepelman, A note on the representation of branching quantifiers. Theoretical Linguistics 3, 285–289 (1976)
I. Heim, H. Lasnik, R. May, Reciprocity and plurality. Linguistic Inquiry 22(1), 63–101 (1991)
J. Hintikka, Quantifiers vs. quantification theory. Dialectica 27, 329–358 (1973)
J. Hintikka, Partially ordered quantifiers vs. partially ordered ideas. Dialectica 30, 89–99 (1976)
Jackendoff, R. (1972). Semantic Interpretation and Generative Grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
Janssen, T. (2002). Independent choices and the interpretation of IF-logic. Journal of Logic, Language and Information, 11, 367–387
Janssen, T., & Dechesne, F. (2006). Signalling in IF games: A tricky business. In J. van Benthem, G. Heinzmann, M. Rebuschi & H. Visser (Eds.), The Age of Alternative Logics. Assessing Philosophy of Logic and Mathematics Today. Logic, Epistemology, and The Unity of Science, Chap. 15 (Vol. 3, pp. 221–241). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer
Jaszczolt, K. (2002). Semantics and Pragmatics: Meaning in Language and Discourse. Longman Linguistics Library. London: Longman
R.M. Kempson, A. Cormack, Ambiguity and quantification. Linguistics and Philosophy 4(2), 259–309 (1981a)
R.M. Kempson, A. Cormack, On ‘formal games and forms for games’. Linguistics and Philosophy 4(3), 431–435 (1981b)
R.M. Kempson, A. Cormack, Quantification and pragmatics. Linguistics and Philosophy 4(4), 607–618 (1982)
Liu, F.-H. (1996). Branching quantification and scope independence. In J. van der Does & J. van Eijck (Eds.), Quantifiers, Logic and Language. Center for the Study of Language and Information (pp. 155–168)
Lønning, J. T. (1997). Plurals and collectivity. In J. van Benthem & A. ter Meulen (Eds.), Handbook of Logic and Language (pp. 1009–1053). New York: Elsevier
May, R. (1985). Logical Form: Its Structure and Derivation. Linguistic Inquiry Monographs. Cambridge: The MIT Press
R. May, Interpreting logical form. Linguistics and Philosophy 12(4), 387–435 (1989)
Mostowski, M. (1994). Kwantyfikatory rozgałęzione a problem formy logicznej. In M. Omyła (Ed.), Nauka i język (pp. 201–242). Biblioteka Myśli Semiotycznej
M. Mostowski, D. Wojtyniak, Computational complexity of the semantics of some natural language constructions. Annals of Pure and Applied Logic 127(1–3), 219–227 (2004)
Robaldo, L., Szymanik, J., & Meijering, B. (2014). On the identification of quantifiers’ witness sets: A study of multi-quantifier sentences. Journal of Logic, Language and Information, 23(1), 53–81
Schlenker, P. (2006). Scopal independence: A note on branching and wide scope readings of indefinites and disjunctions. Journal of Semantics, 23(3), 281–314
F. Schlotterbeck, O. Bott, Easy solutions for a hard problem? The computational complexity of reciprocals with quantificational antecedents. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 22(4), 363–390 (2013)
Sevenster, M. (2006). Branches of Imperfect Information: Logic, Games, and Computation. Ph.D. thesis. University of Amsterdam
G. Sher, Ways of branching quantifiers. Linguistics and Philosophy 13, 393–442 (1990)
N. Soja, S. Carey, E. Spelke, Ontological categories guide young children’s induction of word meaning: Object terms and substance terms. Cognition 38, 179–211 (1991)
E. Stenius, Comments on Jaakko Hintikka’s paper ‘quantifiers vs. quantification theory’. Dialectica 30, 67–88 (1976)
J. Szymanik, Computational complexity of polyadic lifts of generalized quantifiers in natural language. Linguistics and Philosophy 33, 215–250 (2010)
N. Tennant, Formal games and forms for games. Linguistics and Philosophy 4(2), 311–320 (1981)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Szymanik, J. (2016). Branching Quantifiers. In: Quantifiers and Cognition: Logical and Computational Perspectives. Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy, vol 96. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-28749-2_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-28749-2_9
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-28747-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-28749-2
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)