Natural Language Semantics

, Volume 5, Issue 1, pp 1–52 | Cite as

Intensional Verbs and Quantifiers

  • Friederike Moltmann


This paper discusses the semantics of intensional NP-taking verbs such as need, want, recognize, and hire. It proposes several new linguistic criteria for intensionality besides the traditional ones of failure of existential quantification and substitutivity, and it defends two different semantic analyses for different intensional verbs. For the majority of verbs, the paper argues for a partialized version of the intensional quantifier analysis originally proposed by Montague, but for a single class of verbs, verbs of comparison, it adopts the property analysis recently proposed as a general analysis of intensional verb constructions by Zimmermann (1992). The paper also includes a systematic classification of intensional verbs according to the type of lexical meaning they involve.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Barwise, J. and R. Cooper: 1979, ‘Generalized Quantifiers and Natural Language’, Linguistics and Philosophy 4, 159–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bennett, M. R.: 1974, Some Extensions of a Montague Fragment of English, Ph.D. dissertation, University of California at Los Angeles.Google Scholar
  3. Carlson, G.: 1977a, Reference to Kinds in English, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
  4. Carlson, G.: 1977b, ‘Amount Relatives’, Language 53(3), 520–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Diesing, M.: 1992, Indefinites, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass..Google Scholar
  6. Dowty, D. R., R. E. Wall and S. Peters: 1981, Introductions to Montague Semantics, Reidel, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  7. Enç, M.: 1991, ‘The Semantics of Specificity’, Linguistic Inquiry 22(1), 1–26.Google Scholar
  8. Fine, K.: 1982, ‘The Problem of Nonexistents. I. Internalism’, Topoi 1, 97–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gamut, L. T. F.: 1991, Logic, Language, and Meaning, vol. 2, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  10. Heim, J.: 1987, ‘Where Does the Definiteness Restriction Apply? Evidence from the Definiteness of Variables’, in A. ter Meulen and E. Reuland (eds.), The Presentation of (In)definiteness, Cambrige University Press, Cambridge, pp. 21–42.Google Scholar
  11. Heim, I.: 1992, ‘Presupposition Projection and the Semantics of Attitude Reports’, Journal of Semantics 9, 183–221.Google Scholar
  12. Higginbotham, J.: 1985, ‘On Semantics’, Linguistic Inquiry 16, 547–594.Google Scholar
  13. Humberstone, L.: 1981, ‘From Worlds to Possibilities’, Journal of Philosophical Logic 10.Google Scholar
  14. Janssen, T.: 1984, ‘Individual Concepts Are Useful’, in F. Landman and F. Veltman (eds.), Varieties of Formal Semantics, Foris, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  15. Kaplan, D.: 1986, ‘Opacity’, in L. E. Hahn and P. A. Schilpp (eds.), The Philosophy of W. V. O. Quine, Open Court, La Salle, 229–289.Google Scholar
  16. Karttunen, L.: 1973, ‘Presuppositions of Compound Sentences’, Linguistic Inquiry 4, 169–193.Google Scholar
  17. Karttunen, L.: 1976, ‘Discourse Referents’, in J. McCawley (ed.), Syntax and Semantics, vol. 17, Academic Press, New York, pp. 363–385.Google Scholar
  18. Keenan, E.: 1987, ‘A Semantic Definition of Indefinite NP’, in A. ter Meulen and E. Reuland (eds.), The (In)Definiteness Effect, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass, pp. 286–317.Google Scholar
  19. Keenan, E. and L. M. Faltz: 1985, Boolean Semantics for Natural Language, Kluwer, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  20. Kratzer, A.: 1989, ‘An Investigation of the Lumps of Thought’, Linguistics and Philosophy 12, 608–653.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Keenan, E. and D. Westerståhl: 1995, ‘Generalized Quantifiers in Linguistics and Logic’, in J. van Benthem and A. ter Meulen (eds.), Handbook of Linguistics and Logic, Elsevier, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  22. Lewis, D.: 1972, Counterfactuals, Basil Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar
  23. Link, G.: 1983, ‘The Logical Analysis of Plurals and Mass Nouns’, in R. Bäuerle et al. (eds.), Semantics from Different Points of View, de Gruyter, Berlin, pp. 303–323.Google Scholar
  24. Ludlow, P.: 1986, The Syntax and Semantics of Referential Attitude Reports, Ph.D. dissertation, Columbia University, New York; reproduced by Indiana University Linguistics Club, Bloomington.Google Scholar
  25. May, R. C.: 1985, Logical Form: Its Structure and Derivation, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
  26. McCawley, J.: 1974, ‘On Identifying the Remains of Deceased Clauses’, Language Research 9, 73–85.Google Scholar
  27. Milsark, G.: 1977, ‘Toward an Explanation of Certain Peculiarities of the Existential Construction in English’, Linguistic Analysis 3, 1–29.Google Scholar
  28. Montague, R.: 1969, ‘On the Nature of Certain Philosophical Entities’, Monist 53, 159–194; reprinted in Montague (1974), pp. 149–187.Google Scholar
  29. Montague, R.: 1970, ‘Universal Grammar’, Theoria 36, 373–398; reprinted in Montague (1974), pp. 222–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Montague, R.: 1973, ‘The Proper Treatment of Quantification in Ordinary English’, in J. Hintikka et al. (eds.) Approaches to Natural Language, Reidel, Dordrecht, pp. 221–242; reprinted in Montague (1974), pp. 247–270.Google Scholar
  31. Montague, R.: 1974, Formal Philosophy, Yale University Press, New Haven.Google Scholar
  32. Parsons, T.: 1980, Nonexistent Objects, Yale University Press, New Haven.Google Scholar
  33. Partee, B. H. and M. Rooth: 1983, ‘Generalized Conjunction and Type Ambiguity’, in R. Bäuerle et al. (eds.), Meaning, Use, and Interpretation of Language, de Gruyter, Berlin, pp. 361–383.Google Scholar
  34. Pesetsky, D.: 1987, ‘Wh in Situ: Movement and Unselective Binding’, in E. J. Reuland and A. ter Meulen (eds.), The (In)Definiteness Effect, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., pp. 98–129.Google Scholar
  35. Quine, W. V. O.: 1956, ‘Quantifiers and Propositional Attitudes’, Journal of Philosophy 53, 177–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Roberts, C.: 1989, ‘Modal Subordination and Pronominal Anaphora in Discourse’, Linguistics and Philosophy 10, 683–721.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Stalnaker, R.: 1973, ‘Presuppositions’, Journal of Philosophical Logic 2, 447–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Stowell, T.: 1991, ‘Determiners in NP and DP’, in K. Leffell and D. Bouchard (eds.), Views on Phrase Structure, Kluwer, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  39. Vergnaud, J.-R.: 1974, French Relative Clauses, Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
  40. Zalta, E.: 1983, Abstract Objects: An Introduction to Axiomatic Metaphysics, Reidel, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  41. Zalta, E.: 1988, Intensional Logic and the Metaphysics of Intentionality, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
  42. Zimmermann, E.: 1992, ‘On the Proper Treatment of Opacity in Certain Verbs’, Natural Language Semantics 1, 149–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Zucchi, A.: 1995, ‘The Ingredients of Definiteness and the Definiteness Effect’, Natural Language Semantics 3, 33–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Friederike Moltmann
    • 1
  1. 1.The Graduate School and University CenterThe City University of New YorkNew York

Personalised recommendations