{"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}
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
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.