What I have attempted to show in the foregoing is that: (1) For any frequency adjective f, there is an element of meaning common to both the adverbial and the generic usage of f; this is a function f′ from propositions to truth-values such that f′(Φ)′ is true at an interval i iff Φ′ is true at subintervals of i distributed through i in a certain way. (2) In an adverbial use of f, f′ functions like the corresponding frequency adverb. (3) In a generic use of f, f′ quantifies the times intervals which a specified object is realized by some stage. (4) In their adverbial usage, frequency adjectives are not regular attributive adjectives at the level at which interpretation takes place, but are perhaps determiners. And (5) in their generic usage, frequency adjectives are adjectives at the level at which interpretation takes place.
More generally, I hope to have suggested something of the range of uses to which frequency is put in natural language. That we effortlessly grasp what is meants by Monday, the Columbus Dispatch, autumn, the Today Show, and so on, demonstrates our fluency in interpreting certain sequences of objects, events, or states of affairs as sequences of values of some function cycling on a time-axis. Much more must ultimately be told about the psychological and anthropological significance of frequency.
KeywordsArtificial Intelligence Natural Language Computational Linguistic Generic Usage Function Cycling
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Bolinger, D.: 1967, ‘Adjectives in English: Attribution and Predication.’ Lingua 18, 1–34.Google Scholar
- Carlson, G. N.: 1977, Reference to Kinds in English. University of Massachusetts doctoral dissertation.Google Scholar
- Carlson, G. N.: 1979, ‘Generics and Atemporal When.’ Linguistics and Philosophy 3, 49–98.Google Scholar
- Cooper, R.: 1975, Montague's Semantic Theory and Transformational Syntax. University of Massachusetts doctoral dissertation.Google Scholar
- Cresswell, M. J.: 1973, Logics and Languages. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
- Cresswell, M. J.: 1978, ‘Prepositions and Points of View.’ Linguistics and Philosophy 2, 1–41.Google Scholar
- Dowty, D. R.: 1979, Word Meaning and Montague Grammar. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
- Grice, H. P.: 1975, ‘Logic and Conversation.’ In The Logic of Grammar, ed. by D.Davidson and G.Harman. Enciono: Dickenson.Google Scholar
- Kaplan, D.: 1973, ‘Bob and Carol and Ted and Alice.’ In Approaches to Natural Language, ed. by K. J. J.Hintikka, J. M. E.Moravcsik, and P.Suppes. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
- Lewis, D.: 1972, ‘General Semantics.’ In Semantics of Natural Language, ed. by D.Davidson and G.Harman. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
- Lewis, D.: 1975, ‘Adverbs of Quantification.’ In Formal Semantics of Natural Language, ed. by E. L. Keenan. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Montague, R.: 1970, ‘Universal Grammar.’ In Formal Philosophy, ed. by R. Thomason. Yale University Press, 1974.Google Scholar
- Montague, R.: 1973a, ‘The Proper Treatment of Quantification in Ordinary English.’ In Formal Philosophy, ed. by R. Thomason. Yale University Press, 1974.Google Scholar
- Montague, R.: 1973b, “Comments on Moravcsik's Paper.” In Approaches to Natural Language, ed. by K. J. J.Hintikka, J. M. E.Moravcsik, and P.Suppes. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
- Sadock, J. M.: 1978, ‘On Testing for Conversational Implicature.’ In Syntax and Semantics. vol. 9, ed. by P.Cole. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
- Scott, D.: 1970. ‘Advice on Modal Logic.’ In Philosophical Problems in Logic: Recent Developments, ed. by K.Lambert. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar