量化而非替代意图

IF 16.4 1区 化学 Q1 CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
T. Zimmermann
{"title":"量化而非替代意图","authors":"T. Zimmermann","doi":"10.3765/SP.10.8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In footnote 13 on p. 85f. of his dissertation, Mats Rooth (1985) addresses certain peculiarities of his treatment of only as a quantifier over propositions. The current note elaborates on that footnote to conclude that the lack of adequacy of this approach to quantification is more severe than previously thought. Section 1 presents a gap in the alternative[s] semantics treatment of only . In Section 2 an attempt is made to close it by way of meaning postulates to eliminate ‘degenerate’ models (Rooth’s term) in which extensions do not vary enough across Logical Space. In view of the lack of feasibility and systematicity of that approach, Section 3 explores a more principled, yet ultimately futile, strategy for determining ‘realistic’ models (Rooth’s term) that reflect the extensional variation offered by Model Space as a whole. Section 4 points out the limitations any such repair encounters when it comes to sentences with non-contingent at-issue contents. Section 5 briefly discusses a variant of the interpretation of only as a quantifier over propositional alternatives and how it fares with respect to the problems addressed in the previous sections. \n \nEARLY ACCESS","PeriodicalId":1,"journal":{"name":"Accounts of Chemical Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":16.4000,"publicationDate":"2017-06-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Quantification over alternative intensions\",\"authors\":\"T. Zimmermann\",\"doi\":\"10.3765/SP.10.8\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In footnote 13 on p. 85f. of his dissertation, Mats Rooth (1985) addresses certain peculiarities of his treatment of only as a quantifier over propositions. The current note elaborates on that footnote to conclude that the lack of adequacy of this approach to quantification is more severe than previously thought. Section 1 presents a gap in the alternative[s] semantics treatment of only . In Section 2 an attempt is made to close it by way of meaning postulates to eliminate ‘degenerate’ models (Rooth’s term) in which extensions do not vary enough across Logical Space. In view of the lack of feasibility and systematicity of that approach, Section 3 explores a more principled, yet ultimately futile, strategy for determining ‘realistic’ models (Rooth’s term) that reflect the extensional variation offered by Model Space as a whole. Section 4 points out the limitations any such repair encounters when it comes to sentences with non-contingent at-issue contents. Section 5 briefly discusses a variant of the interpretation of only as a quantifier over propositional alternatives and how it fares with respect to the problems addressed in the previous sections. \\n \\nEARLY ACCESS\",\"PeriodicalId\":1,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Accounts of Chemical Research\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":16.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-06-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"6\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Accounts of Chemical Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3765/SP.10.8\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"化学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Accounts of Chemical Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3765/SP.10.8","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"化学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

摘要

见第85页脚注13。在他的论文中,Mats Rooth(1985)指出了他只将量词作为命题的特殊处理。本说明对该脚注进行了详细阐述,得出结论认为,这种量化方法缺乏充分性的情况比以前认为的更为严重。第1节介绍了only的替代语义处理中的一个差距。在第2节中,试图通过意义假设的方式来关闭它,以消除“退化”模型(Rooth的术语),其中扩展在逻辑空间上的变化不够。鉴于这种方法缺乏可行性和系统性,第3节探讨了一种更具原则性但最终徒劳的策略,以确定反映模型空间作为一个整体提供的外延变化的“现实”模型(Rooth的术语)。第4节指出,当涉及到具有非偶然争议内容的句子时,任何此类修复都会遇到限制。第5节简要讨论了仅作为命题替代的量词的解释的一种变体,以及它如何与前几节中解决的问题有关。早期访问
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Quantification over alternative intensions
In footnote 13 on p. 85f. of his dissertation, Mats Rooth (1985) addresses certain peculiarities of his treatment of only as a quantifier over propositions. The current note elaborates on that footnote to conclude that the lack of adequacy of this approach to quantification is more severe than previously thought. Section 1 presents a gap in the alternative[s] semantics treatment of only . In Section 2 an attempt is made to close it by way of meaning postulates to eliminate ‘degenerate’ models (Rooth’s term) in which extensions do not vary enough across Logical Space. In view of the lack of feasibility and systematicity of that approach, Section 3 explores a more principled, yet ultimately futile, strategy for determining ‘realistic’ models (Rooth’s term) that reflect the extensional variation offered by Model Space as a whole. Section 4 points out the limitations any such repair encounters when it comes to sentences with non-contingent at-issue contents. Section 5 briefly discusses a variant of the interpretation of only as a quantifier over propositional alternatives and how it fares with respect to the problems addressed in the previous sections. EARLY ACCESS
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Accounts of Chemical Research
Accounts of Chemical Research 化学-化学综合
CiteScore
31.40
自引率
1.10%
发文量
312
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: Accounts of Chemical Research presents short, concise and critical articles offering easy-to-read overviews of basic research and applications in all areas of chemistry and biochemistry. These short reviews focus on research from the author’s own laboratory and are designed to teach the reader about a research project. In addition, Accounts of Chemical Research publishes commentaries that give an informed opinion on a current research problem. Special Issues online are devoted to a single topic of unusual activity and significance. Accounts of Chemical Research replaces the traditional article abstract with an article "Conspectus." These entries synopsize the research affording the reader a closer look at the content and significance of an article. Through this provision of a more detailed description of the article contents, the Conspectus enhances the article's discoverability by search engines and the exposure for the research.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信