1. George Boolos has extensively investigated plural quantification in Boolos [1984] and Boolos [1985]. He observed that such locutions as the Geach and Kaplan’s sentence “There are some critics who admire only one another ” are not adequately formalized in the language of first-order predicate

to extract a ‘cash value ’ from what the necessitist says. Neither mapping is a translation in the usual sense, since necessitists and contingentists use the same language with the same meanings. The former mapping is extended to a second-order modal language under a plural interpretation of the second

Abstract—We give in this paper an explicit formal account of plural semantics in the framework of continuation semantics introduced in [1] and extended in [4]. We deal with aspects of plural dynamic semantics such as plural quantification, plural anaphora, conjunction and disjunction

. Collective entities and collective relations play an important role in natural language. In order to capture the full meaning of sentences like "The Beatles sing `Yesterday' ", a knowledge representation language should be able to express and reason about plural entities -- like

This paper relates to the question whether there is a uniform method of collective quantification. Several approaches to plural quantification are presented as a background for Winter's (1998) unified df it lifting strategy. The main proposal is that so-called cumulative readings, which

Israel is a legally pluralistic society. So is India. And they both have been legally pluralistic societies throughout their history. This is also true of every human society. The forms and levels of legal plurality that we observe across different

This paper proposes a new typology of predicates that serves as a basis for a general treatment of singular and plural noun phrases within generalized quantifier theory. Section 2 proposes that instead of the traditional distinction between "distributive ", "

The influence NPs can have on the aspectual behaviour of verbal expressions, witness the pair 'eat an apple in ten minutes/*for ten minutes' and 'eat apples *in ten minutes/for ten minutes, requires an analysis of how static semantic information (NP) interacts with dynamic semantic information (verb). An interpretation of verbs and NPs is presented in which the interaction is analyzed by using an extension of dynamic logic (DL). First, models for DL are extended by adding a domain E of events (together with an event structure E). The intuition behind this addition is that each transition (pair of states) which is an element of the relation denoted by a program in DL is brought about by an event from E. This makes it possible to view a change either as an object (event) or as a transformation of a state. Second, in addition to sequential programs, parallel programs (relations between sets of states) are introduced. At the level of E this corresponds to the distinction between events and sets of events. The dynamic component of a verbal expression denotes an event-type P that corresponds to a program (relation between states) at the level of the transition structure S. This program has particular properties in terms of which aspectual distinctions are defined. The parallel program corresponding to sets of events is partly determined by the cardinality information introduced by the determiner as part of an argument NP. At the level of E this information functions as a boolean condition expressing the result that is brought about by the set of events. Static information therefore interacts with dynamic information by providing a condition that must hold upon termination of events.

Bare plurals exhibit no quantifier or determiner before the head noun like ‘dogs ’ in the sentence, “Dogs bark”. However, semantically, this sentence is interpreted into ‘generally, all dogs bark’.　The bare plural NP dogs implies ‘all the dogs ’ in the sentence. Therefore bare plurals are normally

This paper introduces some of the main components of a novel type theoretical semantics for quantification with plural noun phrases. This theory, unlike previous ones, sticks to the standard generalized quantifier treatment of singular noun phrases and uses only one lifting operator per semantic