Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Quantification and Modality

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Dynamic Semantics

Part of the book series: Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy ((SLAP,volume 91))

  • 854 Accesses

Abstract

The fourth chapter extends the findings of the previous ones by giving an account of two types of phenomena intensively discussed in the dynamic semantics literature. They concern the representational and dynamic interpretation of generalized quantifiers and epistemic modalities. It is shown that these as well can be handled in a conservative fashion and without requiring a need to resort to another concept of meaning. In all three chapter the main idea is that of a Tarskian satisfaction semantics and that of the dynamic composition of meanings. The chapter concludes with a discussion of a variety of situation semantics, which is definitely useful, but arguably of no use for the treatment of the phenomena dealt with in any version of dynamic semantics, including the one offered in this book.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Aloni, Maria. (2005). Individual Concepts in Modal Predicate Logic. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 34, 1–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aloni, Maria. (2000). Conceptual Covers in Dynamic Semantics. In Nick Braisby Lawrence Cavedon, Patrick Blackburn, & Atsushi Shimojima (Eds.), Logic (pp. 23–48). CSLI: Language and Computation, Vol III, Stanford, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Asher, Nicholas & Sylvain Pogodalla 2010. A Montagovian treatment of modal subordination. In: Nan Li & David Lutz (eds.) Proceedings of SALT XX. Cornell University Press, pp. 387–405.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barker, Chris. (2002). Continuations and the nature of quantification. Natural Language Semantics, 10(3), 211–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barker, Chris, & Shan, Chung-chieh. (2008). Donkey anaphora is in-scope binding. Semantics and Pragmatics, 1, 1–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barker, Chris, Rafaella Bernardi & Chung-chieh Shan 2010. Principles of Interdimensional Meaning Interaction. In: Nan Li & David Lutz (eds.) Proceedings of SALT XX. Cornell University Press, pp. 109–127.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berman, Stephen. (1987). Situation-based Semantics for Adverbs of Quantification. In J. Blevins & A. Vainikka (Eds.), University of Massachusetts Occasional papers 12 (pp. 45–68). GSLA: Amherst.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bittner, Maria 2010. Conditionals as attitude reports. http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~mbittner/pdffilesforweb/bittner10jos.pdf, Rutgers University.

  • Bittner, Maria. (2001). Topical References for Individuals and Possibilities (pp. 33–55). Proceedings of from Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) XI:In.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brasoveanu, Adrian. (2010). Decomposing Modal Quantification. Journal of Semantics, 27, 437–527.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brasoveanu, Adrian 2006. Structured Discourse Reference to Propositions. In: Beáta Gyuris, Lázló Kálmán, Chris Piñón & Károly Varasdi (eds.) Proceedings of the Ninth Symposium on Logic and Language. Besenyőtelek, pp. 35–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brumwell, Christopher. (2009). A Dynamic Analysis of Epistemic Possibility. Master’s thesis: ILLC, Universiteit van Amsterdam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chierchia, Gennaro. (1992). Anaphora and Dynamic Binding. Linguistics and Philosophy, 15(2), 111–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chierchia, Gennaro 1995. Dynamics of Meaning. Anaphora, Presupposition, and the Theory of Grammar. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ciardelli, Ivano, Groenendijk, Jeroen, & Roelofsen, Floris. (2009). Might in Inquisitive Semantics. In E. Cormany, S. Ito, & D. Lutz (Eds.), Proceedings of SALT 18 (pp. 91–108). Ohio: Ohio State University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cresswell, Max J. (2002). Static Semantics for Dynamic Discourse. Linguistics and Philosophy, 25, 545–571.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Groote, Philippe 2006. Towards a Montagovian account of dynamics. In: Masayuki Gibson & Jonathan Howell (eds.) Proceedings of SALT XVI. CLC Publications, 1–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dekker, Paul. (2008). A Multi-dimensional Treatment of Quantification in Extraordinary English. Linguistics and Philosophy, 31(1), 101–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dekker, Paul. (2001). “She”’s Character. In Myriam Bras & Laure Vieu (Eds.), Semantics and Pragmatic Issues in Discourse and Dialogue (pp. 7–28). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dekker, Paul. (2010). There is Something about Might. In Maria Aloni, Harald Bastiaanse, Tikitu de Jager, & Katrin Schulz (Eds.), Logic, Language and Meaning (pp. 244–253). Lecture Notes in Artificial Intellignce, Berlin: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Dekker, Paul 2004. Cases, Adverbs, Situations and Events. In: Hans Kamp & Barbara Partee (eds.) Context-dependence in the Analysis of Linguistic Meaning, Amsterdam: Elsevier. pp. 383–404. Originally 1996, CWI report CS-R9643, http://oai.cwi.nl/oai/asset/4799/4799D.ps

  • Edelberg, Walter 1992. Intentional Identity and the Attitudes. Linguistics and Philosophy 15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elbourne, Paul. (2005). Situations and Individuals. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans, Gareth. (1980). Pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry, 11(2), 337–362.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans, Gareth, 1977. Pronouns, quantifiers and relative clauses (1). The Canadian Journal of Philosophy 7, pp. 467–536. Reprinted in: Evans, G.,. (1985). Collected papers (pp. 76–152). Dordrecht: Foris.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Fraassen, Bas. (1979). Propositional attitudes in weak pragmatics. Journal of Philosophy, 76, 365–374.

    Google Scholar 

  • FraCaS, L.R.E. 1994. Harmonizing the Approaches. Deliverable D7, CCS, Edinburgh.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frank, Anette 1997. Context Dependence in Modal Constructions. Ph.D. thesis, Universität Stuttgart, Stuttgart.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frege, Gottlob. (1892). Über Sinn und Bedeutung. Zeitschrift für Philosophie und philosophische Kritik NF, 100, 25–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geach, Peter T. (1967). Intentional Identity. Journal of Philosophy, 74, 309–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gerbrandy, Jelle. (1999). Dynamic Epistemic Logic. In Lawrence S. Moss, Jonathan Ginzburg, & Maarten de Rijke (Eds.), Logic, Language and Computation (Vol. II, pp. 67–84). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geurts, Bart. (2002). Donkey Business. Linguistics and Philosophy, 25(2), 129–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geurts, Bart. (1999). Presuppositions and Pronouns, volume 3 of CRISPI. London: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gillies, Anthony, & von Fintel, Kai. (2008). CIA Leaks. The Philosophical Review, 117, 77–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Groenendijk, Jeroen, & Stokhof, Martin. (1990). Dynamic Montague Grammar. In László Kálmán & László Pólos (Eds.), Papers from The Second Symposium on Logic and Language (pp. 3–48). Akadémiai Kiadó: Budapest.

    Google Scholar 

  • Groenendijk, Jeroen 2007. The Logic of Interrogation. In: Maria Aloni, Alastair Butler & Paul Dekker (eds.) Questions in Dynamic Semantics. CRiSPI 17, Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 43–62. Also appeared in T. Matthews and D. Strolovitch (eds.), 1999, Proceedings of SALT IX, CLC Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Groenendijk, Jeroen, Stokhof, Martin, & Veltman, Frank. (1996). Coreference and Modality. In Shalom Lappin (Ed.), The Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory (pp. 179–213). Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Groote, Philippe. (2001). Type raising, continuations, and classical logic. In Robert van Rooy & Martin Stokhof (Eds.), Proceedings of the Thirteenth Amsterdam Colloquium (pp. 97–101). Amsterdam: ILLC/Department of Philosophy.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heim, Irene. (1990). E-type Pronouns and Donkey Anaphora. Linguistics and Philosophy, 13(2), 137–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heim, Irene 1982. The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases. Ph.D. thesis, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Published in 1988 by Garland, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hendriks, Herman 1993. Studied Flexibility. Ph.D. thesis, University of Amsterdam.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Heusinger, Klaus. (2004). Choice functions and the anaphoric semantics of definite NPs. Research in Language and Computation, 2(3), 309–329.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hulstijn, Joris 1997. Structured Information States. Raising and Resolving Issues. In: Anton Benz & Gerhard Jäger (eds.) Proceedings of MunDial97, University of Munich. pp. 99–117.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacobson, Pauline. (1999). Towards a Variable-Free Semantics. Linguistics and Philosophy, 22, 117–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kadmon, Nirit. (1990). Uniqueness. Linguistics and Philosophy, 13, 273–324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kanazawa, Makoto. (1994). Weak vs Strong Readings of Donkey Sentences and Monotonicity Inference in a Dynamic Setting. Linguistics and Philosophy, 17(2), 109–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kempson, Ruth, & Meyer-Viol, Wilfrid. (2004). Indefinites and scope choice. In Anne Bezuidenhout & Marga Reimer (Eds.), Descriptions and Beyond: An Interdisciplinary Collection of Essays on Definite and Indefinite Descriptions and other Related Phenomena (pp. 558–583). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kratzer, Angelika. (1998). Scope or Pseudoscope? Are There Wide-Scope Indefinites? In Susan Rothstein (Ed.), Events in Grammar (pp. 163–196). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kratzer, Angelika. (1981). The notional category of modality. In Hans-Jürgen Eikmeyer & Hannes Rieser (Eds.), Words (pp. 38–74). de Gruyter: Worlds and Contexts, Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kratzer, Angelika. (1989). An Investigation of the Lumps of Thought. Linguistics and Philosophy, 12(5), 607–653.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kratzer, Angelika 1977. What Must and Can Must and Can Mean. Linguistics and Philosophy 1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kripke, Saul 1972. Naming and Necessity. In: Donald Davidson & Gilbert Harman (eds.) Semantics of Natural Languages, Dordrecht: Reidel. pp. 254–355, 763–769.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kripke, Saul 1979. A puzzle about belief. In: A. Margalit (ed.) Meaning and Use, Reidel, Dordrecht. pp. 239–283.

    Google Scholar 

  • Landman, Fred. (1986). Towards a Theory of Information. Dordrecht: Foris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis The Philosophical Review, (1979). Attitudes De Dicto and De Se. 88(4), 513–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, David 1979. Possible Worlds. In: Michael J. Loux (ed.) The Possible and the Actual. Readings in the metaphysics of modality, Ithaca: Cornell University Press. pp. 182–189.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ludlow, Peter, & Neale, Stephen. (1991). Indefinite Descriptions. Linguistics and Philosophy, 14(2), 171–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Montague, Richard, 1974. The proper treatment of quantification in ordinary English. In: Richmond Thomason (ed.) Formal Philosophy. Selected papers of Richard Montague, New Haven: Yale University Press. pp. 247–70. Originally published in J. Hintikka, J. Moravcsik and P. Suppes, (Eds.). (1973). Approaches to Natural Language (pp. 221–42). Dordrecht: Reidel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Muskens, Reinhard. (1996). Combining Montague semantics and discourse representation. Linguistics and Philosophy, 19(2), 143–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neale, Stephen. (1990). Descriptions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nouwen, Rick 2003. Plural pronominal anaphora in context: dynamic aspects of quantification. Ph.D. thesis, UiL-OTS, Utrecht. LOT dissertation series, No. 84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quine, W. V., 1956. Quantifiers and Propositional Attitudes. Journal of Philosophy 53, pp. 177–187. Reprinted in: W.V. Quine,. (1966). The Ways of Paradox and Other Essays. New York: Random House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reinhart, Tanya. (1997). Quantifier Scope: How Labor is Divided Between QR and Choice Functions. Linguistics and Philosophy, 20, 335–397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, Craige. (1989). Modal Subordination and Pronominal Anaphora in Discourse. Linguistics and Philosophy, 12(4), 683–722.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roussarie, Laurent 2009. What might be known: epistemic modality and uncertain contexts. Journées Sémantique and Modélisation (JSM09), Paris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Russell, Bertrand 1905. On Denoting. Mind XIV, pp. 479–493.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sandu, Gabriel. (1997). On the theory of anaphora: dynamic predicate logic vs. game-theoretical semantics. Linguistics and Philosophy, 20, 147–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shan, Chung-chieh 2001. A variable-free dynamic semantics. In: Robert van Rooy & Martin Stokhof (eds.) Thirteenth Amsterdam Colloquium, Proceedings. Amsterdam: ILLC, University of Amsterdam, pp. 204–209.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slater, Hartley. (1986). E-type Pronouns and \(\varepsilon \)-terms. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 16, 27–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stalnaker, Robert. (1976). Possible Worlds. Noûs, 10, 65–75.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stokhof, Martin 2002. Meaning, Interpretation and Semantics. In: Dave Barker-Plummer, David I. Beaver, Johan van Benthem& Patrick Scotto di Luzio (eds.) Words, Proofs, and Diagrams, Stanford: CSLI Press. pp. 217–240.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stone, Matthew,& Hardt, Daniel. (1999). Dynamic Discourse Referents for Tense and Modals. In Harry Bunt& Reinhard Muskens (Eds.), Computing Meaning (pp. 302–321). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Szabolcsi, Anna. (2003). Binding on the fly: Cross-sentential anaphora in variable-free semantics. In Geert-Jan M. Kruijff& Richard T. Oehrle (Eds.), Resource-sensitivity, Binding, and Anaphora (pp. 215–227). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Szabolcsi, Anna. (1997). Ways of Scope Taking. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • van den Berg, Martin H. 1996. The Internal Structure of Discourse. Ph.D. thesis, Universiteit van Amsterdam, Amsterdam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Veltman, Frank. (1996). Defaults in Update Semantics. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 25(3), 221–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Veltman, Frank. (1984). Data Semantics. In Jeroen Groenendijk, Theo Janssen,& Martin Stokhof (Eds.), Truth (pp. 43–63). Foris: Interpretation and Information, Dordrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Westersthl, Dag. (1984). Determiners and Context Sets. In Johan van Benthem & Alice ter Meulen (Eds.), Generalized Quantifiers in Natural Language (p. 71). Dordrecht: Foris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winter, Yoad. (1997). Choice Functions and the Scopal Semantics of Indefinites. Linguistics and Philosophy, 20, 399–467.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wittgenstein, Ludwig 1922. Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. Oxford: Routledge and Kegan. Originally appeared in 1921 as Logisch-Philosophische Abhandlung in the “Annalen der Naturphilosophie, 14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yalcin, Seth 2008. Modality and Inquiry. Ph.D. thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Philosophy, University of Amsterdam, Oude Turfmarkt 145, 1012 GC, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Paul J. E. Dekker

Authors
  1. Paul J. E. Dekker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2012 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Dekker, P.J.E. (2012). Quantification and Modality. In: Dynamic Semantics. Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy, vol 91. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4869-9_4

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation