Relevant bibliographies by topics / Quantifiers

Contents

  1. Journal articles

Academic literature on the topic 'Quantifiers'

Author: Grafiati
Published: 4 June 2021
Last updated: 11 June 2025

Create a spot-on reference in APA, MLA, Chicago, Harvard, and other styles

Select a source type:

Consult the lists of relevant articles, books, theses, conference reports, and other scholarly sources on the topic 'Quantifiers.'

Next to every source in the list of references, there is an 'Add to bibliography' button. Press on it, and we will generate automatically the bibliographic reference to the chosen work in the citation style you need: APA, MLA, Harvard, Chicago, Vancouver, etc.

You can also download the full text of the academic publication as pdf and read online its abstract whenever available in the metadata.

Journal articles on the topic "Quantifiers"

1

CUI, LICONG, YONGMING LI, and XIAOHONG ZHANG. "INTUITIONISTIC FUZZY LINGUISTIC QUANTIFIERS BASED ON INTUITIONISTIC FUZZY-VALUED FUZZY MEASURES AND INTEGRALS." International Journal of Uncertainty, Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based Systems 17, no. 03 (2009): 427–48. http://dx.doi.org/10.1142/s0218488509005966.

Full text
Abstract:
In this paper, we generalize Ying's model of linguistic quantifiers [M.S. Ying, Linguistic quantifiers modeled by Sugeno integrals, Artificial Intelligence, 170 (2006) 581-606] to intuitionistic linguistic quantifiers. An intuitionistic linguistic quantifier is represented by a family of intuitionistic fuzzy-valued fuzzy measures and the intuitionistic truth value (the degrees of satisfaction and non-satisfaction) of a quantified proposition is calculated by using intuitionistic fuzzy-valued fuzzy integral. Description of a quantifier by intuitionistic fuzzy-valued fuzzy measures allows us to take into account differences in understanding the meaning of the quantifier by different persons. If the intuitionistic fuzzy linguistic quantifiers are taken to be linguistic fuzzy quantifiers, then our model reduces to Ying's model. Some excellent logical properties of intuitionistic linguistic quantifiers are obtained including a prenex norm form theorem. A simple example is presented to illustrate the use of intuitionistic linguistic quantifiers.
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
2

Benmamoun, Elabbas. "The Syntax of Quantifiers and Quantifier Float." Linguistic Inquiry 30, no. 4 (1999): 621–42. http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/002438999554237.

Full text
Abstract:
The Arabic quantifier kull displays a Q___NP and NP___Q alternation. Shlonsky (1991) argues that in both patterns Q heads a QP projection with the NP as a complement that may undergo movement to [Spec, QP] or beyond to yield the NP___Q pattern and Q-float structures. On the contrary, I argue on the basis of evidence from reconstruction, Case, and agreement that the two patterns are radically different. In the Q___NP pattern Q is indeed the head of a QP projection that contains the NP. In the NP___Q pattern, however, Q heads a QP adjunct that modifies the NP and in some cases the VP.
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
3

Huumo, Tuomas. "Layers of (un)boundedness: The aspectual–quantificational interplay of quantifiers and partitive case in Finnish object arguments." Linguistics 58, no. 3 (2020): 905–36. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/ling-2020-0084.

Full text
Abstract:
AbstractI present an account of the interplay between quantifiers and the partitive–accusative case alternation in Finnish object marking, with special reference to the aspectual and quantificational semantics of the clause. The case alternation expresses two oppositions (in affirmative clauses): (a) bounded (accusative) vs. unbounded (partitive) quantity, (b) culminating (accusative) vs. non-culminating (partitive) aspect. The quantifiers analyzed are of two main types: (i) mass quantifiers (e. g., paljon ‘a lot of’, vähän ‘(a) little’), which quantify a mass expressed by a mass noun or a plural form, (ii) number quantifiers (e. g., moni ‘many’, usea ‘a number of’), which quantify a multiplicity of discrete entities expressed by a count noun in the singular or plural. Finnish mass quantifiers only quantify nominals in the partitive, while number quantifiers agree with the quantified nominal in number and case and are used throughout the case paradigm. With a mass quantifier, the partitive form of the quantified nominal expresses unbounded quantity, which the quantifier then renders bounded (quantized). This is why object phrases with mass quantifiers behave like accusative objects: they express a bounded quantity together with culminating aspect. Number quantifiers quantify both accusative and partitive objects, in the singular and plural. Such objects are able to express aspect and quantity at two levels: (i) that of the individual component events which concern one entity each; (ii) that of the higher-order event which concerns the whole quantity expressed. I argue that the case marking of the object relates primarily to level (i), while the meaning of the number quantifier relates to level (ii). This is why a number quantifier typically renders the quantity bounded and the aspect culminating at level (ii), even when the partitive case expresses unboundedness or lack of culmination at level (i).
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
4

De Cat, Cécile. "Towards a unified analysis of French floating quantifiers." Journal of French Language Studies 10, no. 1 (2000): 1–25. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0959269500000119.

Full text
Abstract:
In French, a quantifier can appear in various positions outside of the NP it quantifies over, whether this NP is the subject or the (direct or indirect) object of the sentence. This phenomenon, often referred to as ‘floating’, has been investigated since the early stages of the generative framework, and several analyses have been proposed to account for both the quantifier subject and the quantifier object in a unified way. However, to my knowledge, none of them has succeeded in providing such a unified account without recourse to non-explanatory restrictions. The main aim of this paper is to propose an analysis that does not require any such restrictions. The focus will be on anaphoric quantifiers (i.e. quantifiers that have to be linked to some other argument position in order to be interpretable), the analysis of which will be shown to extend straightforwardly to pronominal and adverbial quantifiers, according to the principles of Government and Binding theory.The study of floating quantifiers raises the broader question of how to account for locality requirements in a satisfactory way. Basically, there are two possible ways to account for the restrictions on the distribution of floating quantifiers: either they flow from derivational restrictions, or they are subject to representational restrictions. I will argue in favour of the latter.The analysis proposed here is essentially syntactic. However, reference will be made to the semantic interpretation of various structures: the position occupied by the floating quantifier at S-structure will be shown to constrain its interpretation. The semantics of floating quantifiers will however not be investigated beyond this.
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
5

Holford, Dawn Liu, Marie Juanchich, Tom Foulsham, Miroslav Sirota, and Alasdair D. F. Clarke. "Eye-tracking evidence for fixation asymmetries in verbal and numerical quantifier processing." Judgment and Decision Making 16, no. 4 (2021): 969–1009. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s1930297500008056.

Full text
Abstract:
AbstractWhen people are given quantified information (e.g., ‘there is a 60% chance of rain’), the format of quantifiers (i.e., numerical: ‘a 60% chance’ vs. verbal: ‘it is likely’) might affect their decisions. Previous studies with indirect cues of judgements and decisions (e.g., response times, decision outcomes) give inconsistent findings that could support either a more intuitive process for verbal than numerical quantifiers or a greater focus on the context (e.g., rain) for verbal than numerical quantifiers. We used two pre-registered eye-tracking experiments (n(1) = 148, n(2) = 133) to investigate decision-making processes with verbal and numerical quantifiers. Participants evaluated multiple verbally or numerically quantified nutrition labels (Experiment 1) and weather forecasts (Experiment 2) with different context valence (positive or negative), and quantities (‘low’, ‘medium’, or ‘high’ in Experiment 1 and ‘possible’, ‘likely’, or ‘very likely’ in Experiment 2) presented in a fully within-subjects design. Participants looked longer at verbal than numerical quantifiers, and longer at the contextual information with verbal quantifiers. Quantifier format also affected judgements and decisions: in Experiment 1, participants judged positive labels to be better in the verbal compared to the equivalent numerical condition (and to be worse for negative labels). In Experiment 2, participants decided on rain protection more for a verbal forecast of rain than the equivalent numerical forecast. The results fit the explanation that verbal quantifiers put more focus on the informational context than do numerical quantifiers, rather than prompting more intuitive decisions.
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
6

신근영. "A New Type of Floating Quantifiers: Tamazight Quantifier Kullu." Journal of Studies in Language 32, no. 1 (2016): 95–114. http://dx.doi.org/10.18627/jslg.32.1.201605.95.

Full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
7

Szymanik, Jakub, and Marcin Zajenkowski. "Contribution of working memory in parity and proportional judgments." Cognitive and Empirical Pragmatics 25 (December 5, 2011): 176–94. http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/bjl.25.08szy.

Full text
Abstract:
This paper presents experimental evidence on the differences in a sentence–picture verification task under additional memory load between parity and proportional quantifiers. We asked subjects to memorize strings of four or six digits, then to decide whether a quantified sentence was true for a given picture, and finally to recall the initially given string of numbers. The results show that: (a) proportional quantifiers are more difficult than parity quantifiers with respect to reaction time and accuracy; (b) maintaining either four or six elements in working memory has the same effect on the processing of parity quantifiers; (c) however, in the case of proportional quantifiers subjects perform better in the verification tasks under the six-digit load condition, and (d) even though the strings of four numbers were better recalled by subjects after judging parity there is no difference between quantifiers in the case of the six-element condition. We briefly outline two alternative explanations for the observed phenomena rooted in the computational model of quantifier verification and the different theories of working memory.
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
8

Yokota, Kenji. "Japanese floating numeral quantifiers as generalized quantifiers." Language Sciences 45 (September 2014): 123–34. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2014.06.017.

Full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
9

Moxey, Linda M. "Processing Quantified Noun Phrases with Numbers Versus Verbal Quantifiers." Discourse Processes 55, no. 2 (2017): 136–45. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0163853x.2017.1330042.

Full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
10

BARBERO, FAUSTO. "SOME OBSERVATIONS ABOUT GENERALIZED QUANTIFIERS IN LOGICS OF IMPERFECT INFORMATION." Review of Symbolic Logic 12, no. 3 (2019): 456–86. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s1755020319000145.

Full text
Abstract:
AbstractWe analyse the two definitions of generalized quantifiers for logics of dependence and independence that have been proposed by F. Engström, comparing them with a more general, higher order definition of team quantifier. We show that Engström’s definitions (and other quantifiers from the literature) can be identified, by means of appropriate lifts, with special classes of team quantifiers. We point out that the new team quantifiers express a quantitative and a qualitative component, while Engström’s quantifiers only range over the latter. We further argue that Engström’s definitions are just embeddings of the first-order generalized quantifiers into team semantics, and fail to capture an adequate notion of team-theoretical generalized quantifier, save for the special cases in which the quantifiers are applied to flat formulas. We also raise several doubts concerning the meaningfulness of the monotone/nonmonotone distinction in this context. In the appendix we develop some proof theory for Engström’s quantifiers.
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
More sources
You might also be interested in the extended bibliographies on the topic 'Quantifiers' for particular source types:
Journal articles
We offer discounts on all premium plans for authors whose works are included in thematic literature selections. Contact us to get a unique promo code!

To the bibliography