Advertisement

Quantification with Intentional and with Intensional Verbs

  • Friederike MoltmannEmail author
Part of the Synthese Library book series (SYLI, volume 373)

Abstract

Whether natural language permits quantification over ‘nonexistent’, intentional objects is subject of a major controversy, as is the nature of such entities themselves. This paper argues that certain constructions in natural language involving ‘intentional verbs’ such as ‘think of ’, ‘describe’, and ‘imagine’ cannot be analysed compositionally without positing intentional objects, as entities strictly dependent on intentional acts. The paper also argues that intentional verbs involve a distinctive semantics, which is fundamentally different from that of intensional transitive verbs, a difference reflected in a range of quantificational phenomena.

Keywords

Relative Clause Fictional Character Definite Description Intentional Object Head Noun 
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.

References

  1. 1.
    Brentano, F. 1874/1911. Psychologie vom Empirischen Standpunkt. Leipzig: Duncker & Humblot. (English trans. 1995. London: Routledge).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Carlson, G. 1977. Amount relatives. Language 53: 520–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Crane, T. 2001. Intentional objects. Ratio 14: 336–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Everett, A. 2000. Referentialism and empty names. In [6].Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kripke, S. 2013. Reference and existence. the John Locke lectures. New York: Oxford UP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Everett, A. and T. Hofweber (eds.). 2000. Empty names, fiction, and the puzzle of non-existence. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fine, K. 2007. Semantic relationalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Grosu, A., and M. Krifka. 2007. The gifted mathematician that you claim to be. Linguistics and Philosophy 30: 445–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Grosu, A., and F. Landman. 1998. Strange relatives of the third kind. Natural Language Semantics 6: 125–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Horn, L. 1985. Metalinguistic negation and pragmatic ambiguity. Language 61: 121–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    McGinn, C. 2000. Logical properties. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Meinong, A. 1904. Gegenstandstheorie. In Untersuchungen zur Gegenstandstheorie und Psychologie, ed. A. Meinong. Leipzig. (English trans.: The theory of objects). In Realism and the background to phenomenology, ed. R. Chisholm. London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Miller, B. 1975. In defense of the predicate ‘Exist’. Mind 84: 338–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Miller, B. 1986. ‘Exists’ and existence. The Review of Metaphysics 40: 237–270.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Moltmann, F. 1997. Intensional verbs and quantifiers. Natural Language Semantics 5(1): 1–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Moltmann, F. 2003. Nominalizing quantifiers. Journal of Philosophical Logic 32: 445–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Moltmann, F. 2008. Intensional verbs and their intentional objects. Natural Language Semantics 16(3): 257–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Moltmann, F. 2012. Intensional relative clauses and the notion of a variable object. In Proceedings of the 18th Amsterdam colloquium 2011, Amsterdam. FOLLI lecture notes in computer science (LNCS), 431–440. Springer.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Moltmann, F. 2013. Abstract objects and the semantics of natural language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Moltmann, F. 2013. The semantics of existence. Linguistics and Philosophy 36(1): 31–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Moltmann, F. (2015). Variable objects and truthmaking. In The philosophy of Kit Fine, ed. M. Dumitru. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Montague, R. 1973. The proper treatment of quantification in ordinary English. In Approaches to natural language, ed. J. Hintikka, et al., 221–242. Dordrecht: Reidel. (Reprinted in Thomason, R. 1974. Formal philosophy. Selected papers by Richard Montague. Montague Grammar.).Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Parsons, T. 1980. Nonexistent objects. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Priest, G. 2005. Towards non-being: The logic and metaphysics of intentionality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Russell, B. 1968. On denoting. In: Logic and knowledge, ed. R.C. Marsh. London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sainsbury, M. 2005. Reference without referents. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Salmon, N. 1987. Existence. Philosophical Perspectives 1: 49–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Salmon, N. 1998. Nonexistence. Nous 32(3): 277–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Taylor, K. 2000. Emptiness without compromise. In [6].Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Thomasson, A. 1999. Fiction and metaphysics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Tye, M. 1984. The adverbial theory of visual experience. Philosophical Review 93: 195–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    van Inwagen, P. 2000. Quantification and fictional discourse. In [6].Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    van Inwagen, P. 2008. McGinn on existence. The Philosophical Quarterly 58: 36–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Voltolini, A. 2009. Consequences of schematism. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 8(1): 135–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Voltolini, A. 2009. Seven consequences of creationism. Metaphysica 10: 27–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Walton, K.L. 2000. Existence as metaphor. In Empty names, fiction and the puzzles of nonexistence, ed. A. Everett and T. Hofweber, 69–99. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Zimmermann, T.E. 1993. On the proper treatment of opacity in certain verbs. Natural Language Semantics 1: 149–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Zimmermann, T.E. 2001. Unspecificity and intensionality. In Audiatur Vox Sapientiae, ed. C. Féry and W. Sternefeld, 514–532. Berlin: Akademie.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institut d’Histoire et de Philosophie de Sciences et Techniques (IHPST)Université Paris 1ParisFrance

Personalised recommendations