Lexicon of Arguments

Philosophical and Scientific Issues in Dispute
 
[german]


Complaints - Corrections

Table
Concepts
Versus
Sc. Camps
Theses I
Theses II

Concept/Author*  

What is wrong?
Page
Other metadata
Translation
Excerpt or content
Other

Correction: Year / Place / Page
/ /

Correction:
(max 500 charact.)

Your username*
or User-ID

Email address*

The complaint
will not be published.

 
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.

Found an error? Use our Complaint Form. Perhaps someone forgot to close a bracket? A page number is wrong?
Help us to improve our lexicon.
However, if you are of a different opinion, as regards the validity of the argument, post your own argument beside the contested one.
The correction will be sent to the contributor of the original entry to get his opinion about.