universal quantifier

Table 7 presents scope preferences according to the four types of universal quantifiers used on the subject DP in Experiment 5.

In sentences with two determiner quantifiers, we expect that what will govern the final preference of the perceiver is the nature of the two quantified phrases: use of a distributive universal quantifier such as each in English or jeder in German may result in narrow scope readings for the topicalized phrase (ein Aufsatz), whereas quantifiers that are not distributive (alle/all) shouldn't show such a strong preference for the narrow scope reading of the topicalized phrase.

This statement could be equivalently written in English, eliminating all universal quantifiers (every phrases) as follows: It is not true that there is a company that is destroying at least one forest and this company is not savage, or there is a person who lives in Canada and who is not concerned about that company.

The use of implications with universal quantifiers is also a natural and intuitive way to express the for all and every English phrases.

For (ii), we slightly modify the previous formula [Phi] by turning the existential quantifier [exists]z into a universal quantifier [inverted] Az, and by replacing the last two conjuncts with

[MATHEMATICAL EXPRESSION NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] [] We therefore will assume that the universal quantifier in [Phi] is strict.

They are demonstratives, possessives, and universal quantifiers.

Universal quantifiers. Also used as markers of definiteness in Chinese are universal quantifiers, which include collective universal quantifiers suoyou 'all,' yiqie 'all,' and distributive universal quantifiers mei 'each, every,' and ge 'each, every.' Consider the following examples:

The only argument for treating universal quantifiers as topics is the relative acceptability of left-dislocation of such expressions in Romance.

Since the main empirical motivation for AS is the possibility of left-dislocation of universally quantified NPs, one would expect at least further cross-linguistic evidence for the representation of universal quantifiers as topics.

As additional evidence, note that a universal quantifier in the position of to no relatives in (1b) can distribute over a direct object on its left:

In (42) below the PIs budge an inch, a damned thing, the least bit, any change, and anything are visibly licensed by, respectively, negation, a negative quantifier, the universal quantifier in its restrictive term (a downward-entailing context), a conditional, and a yes-no question operator: (42) a.

In particular we showed that a number of asymmetries between the forms concerning the binding of wh words or the interaction with universal quantifiers naturally follow from our model.

McCawley (1994: 190) notices the following scope difference with the universal quantifier. (17) A: Tamen dou xi-bu-xihuan kai che?