@misc{Lexicon of Arguments, title = {Quotation from: Lexicon of Arguments – Concepts - Ed. Martin Schulz, 29 Mar 2024}, author = {Montague,Richard}, subject = {Ambiguity}, note = {Hintikka I 106 Quantification/quantifiers/ambiguity/any/HintikkaVsMontague: on the whole, the Montague semantics show how ambiguity arises through the interplay of quantifiers and intensional expressions. E.g. (12) A woman loves every man. (13) John is looking for a dog. >Intensions, >Quantifiers, >Quantification, cf. >Opacity, >Quantification into opaque contexts. HintikkaVsMontague: explains only why certain expressions can be ambiguous, but not which are actually ambiguous. He generally predicts too many ambiguities. For he is not concerned with the grammatical principles, which often resolve ambiguities with quantifiers. >Grammar. Scope/Hintikka: the scope determines the logical order. >Scope, >Narrow/wide scope. Quantifier/Quantification/everyone/he/Montague/Hintikka: E.g. (14) If he makes an effort, he will be happy. (15) If everyone makes an effort, he will be happy. Problem: in English, "if" has precedence with respect to "everyone" so that "everyone" in (15) cannot precede the "he" as a pronoun ("pronominalize"). >Pronouns, >Operators. I 107 HintikkaVsMontague: we need additional rules for the order of application of the rules.}, note = { Hintikka I Jaakko Hintikka Merrill B. Hintikka Investigating Wittgenstein German Edition: Untersuchungen zu Wittgenstein Frankfurt 1996 Hintikka II Jaakko Hintikka Merrill B. Hintikka The Logic of Epistemology and the Epistemology of Logic Dordrecht 1989 }, file = {http://philosophy-science-humanities-controversies.com/listview-details.php?id=454344} url = {http://philosophy-science-humanities-controversies.com/listview-details.php?id=454344} }