Generalized quantifiers and natural language

By J. Barwise, R. Cooper. 1981

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Linguistics

Citations in the corpus

Reasoning about Quantities in Natural Language (2015, background): “The role of monotonicity in NL reasoning has been described in (Barwise and Cooper, 1981).”
Weakly Supervised Learning of Semantic Parsers for Mapping Instructions to Actions (2013, methodology): “Indefinites As discussed in Section 6.1, we use a new syntactic analysis for indefinites, follow- 4Using type-raising rules can be particularly useful when learning from sparse data.”
Lexical Functional Grammar (2001, unknown): “Further, we have modified his analysis by assuming that a word like every is treated as a generalized quantifier (Barwise and Cooper 1981) specifying that the every relation holds between two properties R and S.”
The myth of language universals: language diversity and its importance for cognitive science. (2009, background): “(13) All languages have syntactic constituents, specifically NPs, whose semantic function is to express general- ized quantifiers over the domain of discourse (Barwise & Cooper 1981 – Konstanz #1203); see Partee (1995) and sect.”
Negation: A theory of its meaning, representation, and use (2012, background): “This treatment of quantifiers is a step towards an account of “generalized quantifiers,” but has the advantage of psychological tractability (see Barwise & Cooper, 1981 ; Montague, 1974 ; Mostowski, 1957 ; Partee, 1975 ).”
Non-monotonicity in NPI licensing (2014, background): “14 If every is taken to trigger an existential presupposition (e.g., Barwise and Cooper 1981), its restrictor is a Strawson DE but not a strict DE environment: a substitution of a weaker expression with a stronger expression in the restrictor may yield an undefined meaning if the resulting…”
The Semantics Of Scandinavian Free Choice Items (2001, methodology): “Thus for every (song in the songbook) I assume an interpretation as described by Barwise and Cooper (1981), and for may I assume an interpretation as described by Kratzer (1981). Below, I shall write ∀ for every.”
The polysemy of measurement (2014, background): “Encoding this existential quantifier lexically, for instance in the numeral itself (as has been done in GQT accounts; Barwise and Cooper, 1981; Keenan and Stavi, 1986) incorrectly predicts that numeral DPs cannot occur with overt determiners (cf.”