Pronouns, Quantifiers, and Relative Clauses (II): Appendix

Canadian Journal of Philosophy

Volumn 7, Issue 4, 1977, Pages 777-797

  Evans, Gareth ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0040252146     PISSN: 00455091     EISSN: 19110820     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/00455091.1977.10716195     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. See especially W. V. Quine, “Reply to Geach”, in Davidson and Hintikka (eds.) Words and Objections (Reidel, Dordrecht, 1969), pp. 331-32 and The Roots of Reference, pp. 90-91.
2. N. Rescher, ‘Plurality-quantification’ Journal of Symbolic Logic 27 (1962) p. 374.
3. J. Wallace, Philosophical Grammar, Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University, 1964 (University Microfilms: Ann Arbor, 1971), esp. pp. 136-54.
4. J.E.J. Altham and N.W. Tennant, op. cit. In saying that they propose a binary analysis, I am cutting through their confusing terminology, and regarding their ‘sortalizer’ as the first constituent in a binary structure. The contrast they have in mind between ‘sortal’ (or ‘restricted’) quantifiers on the one hand and binary quantifiers on the other is never adequately explained, and in my view is better dispensed with. This will help to clear up one contradiction in their paper; for on p. 52 ‘Many P’s are Q’s’ is said to be irreducibly sortal while on pp. 50 and 56 sortal quantifiers are said to be replaceable everywhere by non-sortal quantifiers. The point is that ‘Many P’s are Q‘s’ is irreducibly binary, and it is not threatened by the replacement of Altham and Tennant’s ‘sortal’ quantifiers by other n-ary (n>1) quantifiers.
5. D.K. Lewis, ‘Adverbs of Quantification’, in E. Keenan op. cit. pp.3-15.
6. M. Dummett, Frege, p. 162. It is not so much a suggestion Dummett makes on his own account as one he offers to one who is impressed by Russell’s theory of descriptions.
7. ‘Back Reference’, pp. 204-5. Geach offers a binary treatment of ‘Just one’ quantifier and also, with acknowledgement to Prior, to the ‘the’ quantifier. Presumably to maintain consistency with his views on relative clauses, the binary structure Geach assigns to the sentence ‘The only bachelor who was at the party was F’ is ‘The only bachelor x (x was at the party; x was F)’, rather than ‘The x (x was a bachelor at the party; x was F). But there is no getting around the fact that the property which is required to be uniquely exemplified for the truth of the sentence is 'being a bachelor at the party’. In view of this,‘bachelor’ “goes with” ‘was at the party’ in away in which it plainly does not go with‘was F ’,and it seems pointless not to have a notation which registers this fact. See e.g. B.H. Partee, ‘Some Transformational Extensions of Montague Grammar’, in Partee (ed.), Montague Grammar (Academic Press, 1976), p. 55: ‘Only by making the major syntactic division between “the” and “boy who lives in the park” can a uniform semantic treatment of the be given’.
8. Reference and Generality, p. 118.
9. Reference and Generality, p. 115.
10. ‘On Complex Terms’, Logic Matters, p. 104.
11. ‘Complex Terms Again’, Logic Matters, pp. 107-8.
12. Roots of Reference, p. 90. See Reference and Generality, p. 117. The longer argument in Reference and Generality contains a counter-argument against a way of trying to get out of this ‘difficulty’. Since I shall argue the ‘difficulty’ is quite spurious we do not have to go into these ramifications.
13. “Quine’s Syntactical Insights”, Logic Matters, p. 122. See also ‘On Complex Terms’, pp. 102-5.
14. “On Complex Terms”, Logic Matters, p. 105.1 have changed the numbering and the constituents to make them appropriate to the examples we are considering.
15. Reference and Generality, p. 113.
16. See p. 528, “Pronouns, Quantifiers, and Relative Clauses (1).”
17. Reference and Generality, p. 114.
18. ‘Complex Terms Again’, Logic Matters, p. 107; see also Reference and Generality, p. 118-19 and ‘Back Reference’, p. 202.
19. See P.T. Ceach, ‘Good and Evil’, Analysis 17 (1956), p. 33.
20. Reference and Generality, p. 116.
21. J.D. McCawley, ‘A Program for Logic’, in Davidson and Harman op. cit., p. 530.
22. Logic Matters, p. 125.