... operators, temporal operators, ‘believes that’, or quotation). More important for my present purpose, occurrence-based semantics illumi- nates just what is going on when a quantifi er binds a variable. Properly 2. Hence I reject Donald Davidson’s appeal to “pre-Fregean semantic innocence...

... and as binding a variable within the scope of the attitude verb. This essay is interested in addressing the question what the semantic analysis of this kind of reading should look like from a Fregean perspective—a perspective according to which attitude states are generally relations to structured Fregean...

... as variables would immediately solve the problem of bound interpretations of names. However, since the most prominent examples (and possibly the only examples) of bound names are donkey cases, an explanation of these cases relying on the standard account of variable binding is not going to work. One...

... here). While the variabilist makes use of a familiar mechanism of natu- ral language—variable binding—Kaplan’s proposal engrosses language with the power to reach into the model and meddle with the interpre- tation function. The outcome—for names...

... devices handling binding and scope in familiar formal languages—variables and parentheses—are entirely missing from the surface of the languages we speak. We are so used to reintroducing them at the level of logical form that it is useful to remind ourselves every now...

... for entire sentences in their scope, the quantifiers of first-order logic only selectively shift the individuals denoted by terms in their scope by binding some variables but not others. One can therefore account for the behavior of these pronouns by giving them a semantics analogous to that for variables...

... allows wide scope quantifiers to bind variables in ‘dthat’ terms. Thus, it might be thought thatthe 103 JEFFREY C. KING semantics of complex demonstratives, the expressions, gives no account of occurrences of complex demonstratives like...

... the logical form of a functor. But like ‘dthat’, neither is it a singular term. Like the logician’s inverted iota, it is a variable-binding operator that forms singular terms from open formulas: ‘(zat x)(x is a man & x looks suspicious It is not required, however, that the open-formula matrix, ‘x is a man...

... Conditionals .” Philosophical Studies 116 , no. 3 : 215 – 69 . Nunberg Geoffrey . 1993 . “ Indexicality and Deixis .” Linguistics and Philosophy 16 , no. 1 : 1 – 43 . Partee Barbara . 1989 . “ Binding Implicit Variables in Quantified Contexts .” In Papers from CLS 25 , ed...

... agreed amongst linguists that there is a two-place operator Gen that functions as an adverb of quantification in the sense of Lewis 1975. That is, the operator Gen is unselective, binding any variables that are free in the sentence. Adverbs of quantification include ‘usu- ally’, ‘generally...

... a crucial role in forming ‘converses’ like λ x y . R y x — is loved by —in which λ binds variables in a different order to the order in which they appear in the body of the term. 27 2. The rule Contraction allows one to form reflexivized properties like λ x . R x x — loves...

... that determine their syntactic projection. As an illustration, the lexical item ‘ready’ means READY but is associated with features (say, + AGENT, + ACTIVITY) and these features force the logical forms in which ‘ready’ appears to have two argument spots. The unvoiced argument manifests as a bound variable and so...

... to the conditions formed with the variables. (e) From (d), that quantification binding these variables is incoherent. In the introduction to the volume, Fine says that “the” failure occurs at the first step: in an example like 9 ≥ 7), 9 is the number of the planets, so ᮀ(the number...

..., variables that can take the position of expressions of that type and quantifiers that can bind them. The language also contains a variable binding symbol, λ , for making predicates out of open formulas and doing analogous things to open expressions of other types (the function of this device will become...

... a mark on the quantifiers binding arithmetical variables; for instance, one could write n’ in place of ‘∃n’. But this choice of notation would be an unhappy one, for at least two reasons. First, it could lead to a serious misunderstanding of the proposal...

... because it lies outside the scope of its antecedent ‘a donkey’, and hence can- not be bound by it. By formulating conditions for extending the scope of the antecedent and thus securing dynamic binding for the donkey pronoun, dynamic semantics can treat pronouns across the board as variables...

... the following implementation primarily for concreteness. We assume that genericity is due to an operator GEN, usually tacit, with roughly the meaning of ‘generally’. GEN binds a time variable t in a tensed sentence ψ t to yield another sentence that says, essentially, that ψ is true in enough normal...

... occurrences is put forward as a logical principle, it will be interpreted as if universal quantifi ers binding those variables had been prefi xed to it. Unless we are willing to endorse formulae such as ‘( ∀x ∃y)(x = y which state that everything is a necessary being, we should not accept...

... of truth or of substitutional quantification introduce anaphoric devices that can appear in sentence position. Azzouni instead introduces a formal system that allows a quantifier to bind a single variable that occurs in both sentence and object position. Remarkably enough, in chapter 3, he gives...

...- tifi ers, which bind variables taking the place of singular terms such as ‘Jones’, we can introduce “plural quantifi ers,” which bind variables tak- ing the place of plural terms such as ‘Tom, Dick, and Harry’. These are the quantifi ers ‘for some Xs’ and ‘for all Xs’ that I have been using...