The Mental Representation of Quantifiers

  • Janet Dean Fodor
Part of the Synthese Language Library book series (SLAP, volume 16)


The system of semantic representation for quantified sentences that I shall propose in this paper is an unconventional one and looks very naive in comparison with the elegant formalism of standard quantificational logics. My excuse for presuming to tamper with the standard formalism is that, though it may meet the needs of logicians,1 it by no means obviously meets the needs of psychologists. I include linguists among psychologists, and assume that their common goal is to develop an integrated model of what native speaker/hearers know about their language and how they put this knowledge to work in speaking and understanding.


Noun Phrase Semantic Representation Relative Clause Multiple Quantifier Universal Quantifier 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Anderson, J. R. and G. H. Bower: (1973) Human Associative Memory, V. H. Winston and Sons, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  2. Bordelois, I.: (1974) The Grammar of Spanish Causative Complements, unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  3. Bresnan, J.; (1978) ‘A realistic transformational grammar,’ in M. Hal c, 7. Eresnar and. G. A. Miller (eds.) Linguistic Theory and Psychological Reality, MST C?ress, C:“ambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  4. Cutler, A. and J. A. Fodor: (1979) ‘Semantic focus and sentence comprehension, Ogrition 7, 49–59.Google Scholar
  5. Davidson, D.: (1967) The logical form of action sentences,’ in N. Rescher (ed.,:, The Logic of Decision and Action, Pittsburgh University Press, Pittsburgh.Google Scholar
  6. Engdahl, E.: (1979) ‘The nested dependency constraint as a parsing strategy,’ in E. Engdahl and M. J. Stein (eds.) Papers Presented to Emmon Bach by his Students, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  7. Enderton, H. B.: (1972) A Mathematical Introduction to Logic, Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  8. Fodor; J. A., T. Bever and M. Garrett: (1974) The Psychology of Language: An Intro-duction to Psycholinguistics and Generative Grammar, McGraw-Hill, New York.Google Scholar
  9. Fodor, J. D.: (1978) ‘Parsing strategies and constraints on transformations,’ Linguistic Inquiry 9, 427–473.Google Scholar
  10. Fodor, J. D.: (1979) ‘Superstrategy,’ in W. E. Cooper and E. C. T. Walker (eds.) Sentence Processing: Studies in Psycholinguistics Presented to Merrill Garrett, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, New Jersey.Google Scholar
  11. Goldin Meadow, S.: (1979) ‘Structure in a manual communication system developed without a conventional language model: language without a helping hand,’ in H. A. Whitaker and H. Whitaker (eds.) Studies in Neurolinguistics, Vol. 4, Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  12. Hendrix, G. G.: (1978) `Encoding knowledge in partitioned networks,’ SRI International Technical Note 164, to appear in N. V. Findler (ed.) Associative Networks The Representation and Use of Knowledge in Computers, Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  13. Hintikka, J.: (1968) `Language games for quantifiers,’ in N. Rescher (ed.) Studies in Logical Theory, Basil Blackwell, Oxford. Reprinted with revisions as Ch. III of J. Hintikka, Logic, Language-Games and Information, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1973.Google Scholar
  14. Hintikka, J.: (1974) ‘Quantifiers vs. quantification theory,’ Linguistic Inquiry 5, 153–177.Google Scholar
  15. Toup, G. L.: (1975) The Treatment of Quantifier Scope in Transformational Grammar,unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, City University of New York.Google Scholar
  16. Jackendoff, R. S.: (1972) Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  17. Johnson-Laird, P. N.: (1975) ‘Models of deduction,’ in R. J. Falmagne (ed.), Reasoning: Representation and Process, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, N.J.Google Scholar
  18. Kaplan, D.: (1969) ‘Quantifying in,’ in D. Davidson and J. Hintikka (eds.) Words and Objections, Reidel, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  19. Koster, J.: (1979) ‘Conditions, empty nodes, and markedness,’ Linguistic Inquiry 9, 551–593.Google Scholar
  20. Lakoff, G.: (1965) Irregularity in Syntax, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York.Google Scholar
  21. Lasnik, H.: (1975)’ `On the semantics of negation,’ in D. J. Hockney, (ed.) Contemporary Research in Philosophical Logic and Linguistic Semantics,Reidel, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  22. Lasnik, H. and J. J. Kupin: (1977) ‘A restrictive theory of transformational grammar,’ Theoretical Linguistics 4, 173–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Martin, E. Jr.: (1978) The psychological unreality of quantificational semantics,’ in C. W. Savage (ed.) Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. I X, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis.Google Scholar
  24. May, R. C.: (1977) ‘The grammar of quantification,’ unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  25. Miller, G. A.: (1956) ‘The magical number seven plus or minus two: some limits on our capacity for processing information,’ Psychological Review 63, 81–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Napoli, D. J.: (1974) The No Crossing filter,’ in M. W. La Galy, R. A. Fox and A. Bruck (eds.) Papers from the Tenth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, Chicago Linguistic Society, Chicago.Google Scholar
  27. Quine, W. V. O.: (1956) ‘Quantifiers and propositional attitudes,’ Journal of Philosophy 53, 177–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Reinhart, T.: (1976) The Syntactic Domain of Anaphora,unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, MIT, distributed by Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
  29. VanLehn, K. A.: (1978) ‘Determining the scope of English quantifiers,’ unpublished M.A. dissertation, MIT, Artificial Intelligence Laboratory Report AI-TR-483.Google Scholar
  30. Vendler, Z.: (1976) Linguistics in Philosophy, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New York.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1982

Authors and Affiliations

  • Janet Dean Fodor

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations