Learn More
In the semantics of natural language, quantification may have received more attention than any other subject, and one of the main topics in psychological studies on deductive reasoning is syllogistic inference, which is just a restricted form of reasoning with quantifiers. But thus far the semantical and psychological enterprises have remained disconnected.(More)
The Gricean theory of conversational implicature has always been plagued by data suggesting that what would seem to be conversational inferences may occur within the scope of operators like believe, for example; which for bona fide implicatures should be an impossibility. Concentrating my attention on scalar implicatures, I argue that, for the most part,(More)
Chemla (2009) presents experimental data purporting to show that speakers' intuitions about so-called " embedded implicatures " cause trouble for globalist and localist theories alike. We explain, to begin with, that the way Chemla frames the debate between localists and globalists fails to do justice to the latter. Then we turn to his experimental data,(More)
This is an attempt at reviving Kneale's version of the description theory of names, which says that a proper name is synonymous with a definite description of the form 'the individual named so-and-so'. To begin with, I adduce a wide range of observations to show that names and overt definites are alike in all relevant respects. I then turn to Kripke's main(More)
It is somewhat of an embarrassment to semantics and pragmatics alike that there is no consensus on the meaning of number words like five. According to the orthodox neo-Gricean view, five in fact means 'five or more'. According to the na¨ıve view, which in recent years has begun to regain ground, five simply means 'five'. All things considered, the na¨ıve(More)
Defeasible inferences are inferences that can be revised in the light of new information. Although defeasible inferences are pervasive in everyday communication, little is known about how and when they are processed by the brain. This study examined the electrophysiological signature of defeasible reasoning using a modified version of the suppression task.(More)
Superlative quantifiers (" at least 3 " , " at most 3 ") and comparative quanti-fiers (" more than 2 " , " fewer than 4 ") are traditionally taken to be interde-finable: the received view is that " at least n " and " at most n " are equivalent to " more than n–1 " and " fewer than n+1 " , respectively. Notwithstanding the prima facie plausibility of this(More)
Conditional sentences with quantifying expressions are systematically ambigous. In one reading, the if-clause restricts the domain of the overt quantifier; in the other, the if-clause restricts the domain of a covert quantifier, which defaults to epistemic necessity. Although the ambiguity follows directly from the Lewis-Kratzer line on if, it is not(More)