Premium
Bare Quantifiers?
Author(s) -
BenYami Hanoch
Publication year - 2014
Publication title -
pacific philosophical quarterly
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.914
H-Index - 32
eISSN - 1468-0114
pISSN - 0279-0750
DOI - 10.1111/papq.12023
Subject(s) - quantifier (linguistics) , counterexample , argument (complex analysis) , term (time) , linguistics , natural (archaeology) , philosophy , natural language , contrast (vision) , domain (mathematical analysis) , epistemology , computer science , mathematics , discrete mathematics , artificial intelligence , physics , chemistry , history , mathematical analysis , biochemistry , archaeology , quantum mechanics
Abstract In a series of publications I have claimed that by contrast to standard formal languages, quantifiers in natural language combine with a general term to form a quantified argument, in which the general term's role is to determine the domain or plurality over which the quantifier ranges. In a recent paper Z oltán G endler S zabó tried to provide a counterexample to this analysis and derived from it various conclusions concerning quantification in natural language, claiming it is often ‘bare’. I show that S zabó's example fails, and that even if it were successful his conclusions would not be supported by it.