1

Nandini Bhattacharya

16.01.2014

M.Phil in Linguistics. Sem I

P-2 Term Paper

Semantics of Quantification in Bangla :-

Abstract: Quantifications over individuals or objects are sometimes explicit or implicit

in Natural languages. The question of how the quantification is encoded in various
languages has been widely debated in formal semantics. The traditional view in Generalized
Quantifier Theory is that the Noun Phrases in Natural Languages behave like quantified
expressions and the quantifiers act like determiners. The existing literature mostly probes
into the English data and there is a lot more need for cross-linguistic data to validate the
Theory and examine some language specific phenomena concerning NP quantification. This
paper, proposes a uniform survey of the existing literature highlighting the key points. The
Paper also provides an adequate description of the quantifiers in Bangla. Together with that,
this paper presents some analysis regarding the formalizations of some of the non-logical
and partitive quantification in Bangla. Moreover, the last section of the paper examines the
scopal interaction of quantificational NPs with Negation in Bangla. The analysis focuses on
the semantics of the Noun Phrase quantification following Generalized Quantifier Theory,
and sheds light on the language specific features of quantification in Bangla.

1. Introduction :There are many semantic theories that propose methods for
the proper interpretation of quantified Noun Phrases in natural language. The Generalized
quantifier theory has been an influential sub-field of semantic theory of all. David Lewis
(1970) , first proposes that noun phrases should be interpreted as properties of properties
rather than as in first order predicate logic. His idea was based on the set theoretic notion of
set-subset and set membership and treated Noun Phrases as Generalized quatifiers. After
Lewis, the Generalized Quantifier theory (abbre. GQ Theory), has been developed by
Barwise and Cooper (1981), to the level of Universals. They suggest that all noun phrases
denote generalized quantifiers. They theorizes that the Quantifier Phrase (QP) is formed by
Quantifier determiners combined with Nominal arguments of type <e,t> . They also
proposed weak-strong distinctions of quantifiers. Carlsons papers (1980) focus on the issue
of the treatment of the English bare plurals and how they interact with quantification.
Partee (2004) applies the semantic type theory and type-shifting principles to reconcile the
Generalized Quantifier Theory with the non-uniform NP semantics proposed by Heim and
Kratzer (1998). This tradition has been further put forward by another notable semanticist
such as, Anna Szabolsci (2010).
There is a different between the accounts of the Syntax
and Semantics of quantification. The syntax of quantification has been proposed by kennedy
(1997) and Szabolcsi (1999/2001, 2010). The semantics of quantification is proposed by
Heim and Kratzer (1998) ,Chierchia Gennaro and Sally McConnell-Ginet ( 2000) and
Anastasia Giannakidou and Monika Rathert (2009). By emphasizing, the significance of the
GQ theory, Anastasia Giannakidou and Monika Rathert (2009) state that, the Generalized
Quantifier Theory has motivated an extensive and fruitful research agenda, since 1980s to
the current time. They point out that the framework of GQ Theory has featured in
extensive studies of quantificational structures, with attention to the constituents of QPs,
and their scopal properties. They have emphasized on the cross-linguistic study of
quantification in natural languages. There have also been notable researches in the syntaxsemantics interface of quantification as well.

2. Overview of Literature :Modern quantifiers were first introduced by Montague

(1973). Thereafter, the treatment of quantification has been a most discussed area of
Formal semantics. Following are the overviews of some of the eminent existing literature of
Generalized Quantifier theory in natural language semantics.

2.1.

Barwise and Cooper (1981/2002):According to Barwise and Cooper, the quantifiers of first order

logic are not adequate to properly treat the quantification in Natural languages. There are
natural language sentences that cant be symbolized using Restricted quantification.
Barwise and Cooper argues that the syntactic structure of quantified sentences in predicate
calculus is different from the syntactic structure of the quantified sentences in natural
language. In the article, Barwise and Cooper, discusses the notion of Generalized
Quantification and formalizes it. They propose a detailed analysis of the possible
implications of Generalized Quantifier theory of natural language. They attest their theory
with appropriate examples from English language data. In the article, Barwise and Cooper,
cites some English quantified NPs, such as more than half, most of, no one, only one
etc, and reasons why these quantifiers cant be treated appropriately using traditional first
order logic. They argues that, if E is an arbitrary non-empty set of things , first order logic
only allows quantification over objects in E, it doesnt permit the quantification over the
arbitrary sets of things. So, Generalized quantifier theory in Model-theoretic Semantics,
provides a way to treat and formalize the determiners like most, many, few etc.
Barwise and Cooper suggests, that in a sentence like More
than half *emphasis mine+ of Johns arrows hit the target, more than half doesnt behave
like a quantifier but like a determiner. This determiner combines with a set expression (i.e.
set of Johns arrows) to produce a quantifier. Barwise and Cooper argues that this structure
of the logical quantifiers, such as more than half, most etc, corresponds in a similar way
to the structure of English NPs. The determiner combines with the set of things in a
quantified NP and the whole NP is the quantifier, for example, most people, more than

half of Johns arrows etc. Barwise and Cooper terms these kinds of quantifiers as nonlogical quantifiers. They also argues that the truth value of these quantified sentences will
not depend upon a priori logic but will depend on the underlying measure of infinite sets
that is one is using, which at the same time needs to be included in the Model.
Barwise and Cooper argues that there should be a fixed set of
contexts that determines the meaning of the basic expressions in the quantified sentences.
They propose this assumption as fixed context assumption. So the interpretation of the
non logical quantifiers, like most, may, more than half, few etc will depend on the
Model and will vary from model to model. According to Barwise and Cooper that the
interpretation of the logical quantifier Every ( ) remains same in every model (M).
According to Barwise and Cooper, the quantifiers are used to denote the property of a set,
for example, the Existential quantifier () asserts that the set of individuals (x) have the
property which contains at least one member. The Universal quantifier ( ) asserts that the
set contains all the individual. Barwise and Cooper argues that a quantifier divides up the
family of sets provided by the model (M). When the quantifiers are combined with some
sets it will produce the truth value (T) and with combing with other sets will produce the
truth value (F). Barwise and Cooper argues that the denotation II Q II, of a quantifier symbol
Q, can be formalized as follows,
II II = { X E I X }

[ E = set of entities provided by M]

II II = { }
II Finite II = { X E I X is finite }
II More than half of N II = { X E I X contains more than half of the Ns }
II Most N II = { X E I X contains most Ns }
Therefore, the quantifiers functions from set of things/individuals to the property of a nonempty set.

According to Barwise and Cooper, the predicate calculus

cant adequately translate the subject NPs with non logical quantifiers. So they propose a
simple formalization. For example, they cites the sentence, Most babies sneeze, and
formalizes it as , (Most babies)(sneeze). The sentence will have the truth value T, if the set
of sneezers contains most babies. Barwise and Cooper argues that proper names within a
NP also acts as a quantifier. The NP, with a proper name represents a family of sets,
containing that particular individual denoted by the proper name. Barwise and Cooper
proposes that the semantics of L(GQ) or Generalized quantifier logic, will be defined so that
thing always denotes the set E of things in the Model (i.e. the set of individuals or objects).
They also proposes the syntactic formation rules for L(GQ) using the logical symbols.
Barwise and Cooper, proposes the semantic analysis of
L(GQ) by using the set theoretic notions. They formalizes some of the English quantifiers,
such as, some, every, no, both, etc. According to Barwise and Cooper, II some II is the
function which assigns to each A E the family, II some II (A) = { X E I X A 0 - . They
explains their formalism as, for each of the determiner D, II D II (A) is a family of sets Q with
the property that X Q iff (X A) Q. They describe this property of II D II by proposing
that the quantifier II D II (A) lives on A. They proposes the universal semantic feature of the
determiners that they have the ability to assign to any set A a quantifier, that is the family of
sets, which lives on A. To give evidence of this, Barwise and Cooper provides examples of
the applications of the logic of the GQ Theory to the fragments of English syntax.
Barwise and Cooper proposes some Semantic
Universals, relating to the Generalized Quantifier Theory. They proposes that, Every
natural language has syntactic constituents (called noun-phrases) whose semantic function
is to express generalized quantifiers over the domain of discourse. They argues that, apart
from that it is the whole NP who participate into scope relationships in a proposition. They
proposes another Semantic Universal, If a language allows phrases to occur in a dislocated
position associated with a rule of variable binding, then at least NPs (i.e. the syntactic
category corresponding to quantifiers over the domain of discourse) will occur in this
position. After that, Barwise and Cooper proposes the Determiner Universal and states
that ,Every natural language contains basic expressions, (called determiners) whose

semantic function is to assign to common count noun denotations (i.e. , sets) A quantifier
that lives on A. They cites the example, Many men run Many men are men who run.
Here, the quantifier many lives on the set of men.
Barwise and Cooper draws the distinction between the
weak and strong quantifiers. According to them, the weak quantifiers are the followings:a, some , one/two/three etc, many, a few, few, no , and the strong quantifiers are
the followings :- both, all, every, each, most, neither etc. They also proposes the
Monotone increasing and Monotone decreasing quantifiers and formalizes the
Monotonicity correspondence Universal and Monotonicity Constraints. They attests their
arguments with English data. Barwise and Cooper concludes by critiquing Montagues
(1974) Quantifier Theory. So, therefore, Barwise and Cooper paved the pathways for a
greater grounding of The Generalized Quantifier Theory.

2.2.

Carlson (1980) :According to Carlson, the different meanings of the

English bare plural arise because of the manner in which the context of the sentence
interacts with the bare plural NPs. Similarly we can argue that, the set readings of the
quantifiers such as, some, many, most, few, all etc in English, differs. These
differences arise because of the way in which the context or presupposition set of the
sentence interacts with the quantified expressions and the set NPs. Carlson argues that the
interactions of quantified NPs with negation and bare plurals depends on their relative
scope properties. Carlson proposes that the NPs, such as, Any dog, All dogs, Every Dog
and Each dog , all can be formalized as , (x) (Dog (x) ) , using the first order logic. He
argues that though these quantifiers are quite distinct from each other, it is plausible to
represent all of them in a unified manner. He suggests that a bare plural is also nothing but
the singular form addition to the quantifier every, which can also be represented as a
quantified NP. According to Carlson a generic and existential quantifier can be used to
formalize a bare plural. Later in his thesis, Carlson examines the interaction between the

determiner with the bare plurals and also studies some set-theoretic approaches to analyse
the bare plurals in English.

2.3.

Partee (2004):In her article, Many Quatifiers, Partee analyses the treatment

of many and few in Formal semantics. According to Barbara Partee, the quantifier many
and few, are ambiguous. She argues that these quantifiers are vague between their
cardinal and proportional readings. Partee critiques Montagues treatment of many and
few as context-dependent quantifiers only and also highlights other proposals in the
literature in relation to the quantifiers many and few. Partee argues that many is like
every and most on the proportional readings. She suggests that the quantificational cases
are almost paraphrasable by partitives. The only difference between them can be that the
restrictor clause of the quantifiers is open-ended set and the partitives involve a definite set.
Partee analyses the behaviour of many and few by formalizing their cardinal, proportional
and generic readings and sheds lights on some potential research issues in this area.

2.4. Chierchia Gennaro and Sally McConnell-Ginet ( 2000) :According to Chierchia and McConnell-Ginet, the
quantificational expressions introduce the power to convey generalizations into natural
languages. The quantifiers express the quantity of the individuals in a given domain (F1)
have a given property. They analyses the quantifier logic in the truth-conditional semantic
theory framework. Chierchia and McConnell-Ginet cites an example, Everyone likes Loren.
and states that the sentence is uttered many times, each time pointing at a different
individual until each individual in that domain has been pointed at. They argues that,
relative to that pointing, each of the sentences can be assigned the truth value of whether

they are true or false. If any single individual in that particular domain doesnt like Loren
then the proposition yields the truth value F.
According to Chierchia and McConnell-Ginet, the
quantified expressions denote how many different values of the set of entities we have to
consider. They argue that the quantified expressions are the generalizing component. They
propose that the quantifier sentences are built out of sentences that contain different
variable set. Chierchia and McConnell-Ginet, argues that quantification has two
components, one contains the ordinary attribution of properties to referents/entities, and
another contains an instructions of how many such referents should have those properties.
They proposes a formulae, x3Q ( x3 ), in which, the variable x3 is bound. Chierchia and
McConnell-Ginet, proposes that an occurrence of a variable xn is syntactically bound iff it is
c-commanded by a quantifier coindexed with it., the coindexed quantifier here refers to
xn and xn etc.
Chierchia and McConnell-Ginet hypothesize a syntactic
account of the quantification in relation to c-command and scope interaction. They propose
that an occurrence of xn is syntactically bound by a quantifier, such as, Qn iff Qn is the lowest
quantifier which c-commands xn . They also provide with a semantic account of the
quantification. They suggests that it is part of the semantics of the Pronouns that they can
refer to any individual at all time in a given set , and also can be used with quantifiers to
denote something general about such a set. Chierchia and McConnell-Ginet also presents an
interpretation of the predicate calculus by using independent value assignment functions.
They argues that the Models for the predicate calculus are made up of two things, first is a
specification of the sets or the domain of discourse and second a specifications of the
extensions of the language constants. They propose the structure of the Model for the
predicate calculus in semantics.
According to Chierchia and McConnell-Ginet, the
quantification in predicate calculus and the quantification in natural language are
connected. They applies the predicate calculus model to English quantificational NPs. They
argues that in care of English quantificational NPs, there is a presupposition set that
determines the truth-conditionality of the proposition. They also argues that in English, the

quantifying expressions such as , every, some are always accompanied by some nominal
expressions, that restricts the universe of discourse to a specific set of individuals. Chierchia
and McConnell-Ginet proposes a grammar of English F2 and illustrates its association with a
certain class of English quantified sentences, for example every man is hungry etc. They
analyses the scope taking and binding phenomena in the syntactic structure of the QP
which parallels the compositionality of the semantic representation of the natural language
Quantification. Chierchia and McConnell-Ginet concludes by formalizing the interaction
between the predicate calculus and the logical operator if in the LF representation. .
Chierchia and McConnell-Ginet also highlight the significance of the Generalized Quantifier
approach (sets of sets). They argues that GQ Theory provides a compositional semantics for
NPs, it allows to bring out the cross-categorical nature of the logical words, such as, and,
or etc, it provides a precise criteria for NPs that characterize the distribution of Negative
Polarity Items and it gives an explanation for a substantial universal characteristics of
natural language determiners.

2.5.

Szabolsci (2010) :According to Szabolcsi, the quantified expressions of the logical

language are different from the quantification in natural language. The syntax of logical
language specifies how the quantifier operator combines with expressions to yield new
expressions, and the semantics specifies their effects. Szabolcsi argues that the scope of an
operator in logic results from the constituent that it is attached to. But in natural language
one has to distinguish between semantic scope and syntactic domain. Szabolcsi argues that
the scope of a quantifier A is the property that is asserted to be an element of A on a given
derivation of sentences. If the property A incorporates another property B, such as,
quantifier, negation, model, then A automatically takes scope over B. Szabolcsi argues that
natural language quantifies over times and worlds in a syntactically explicit manner.
Szabolcsi addresses some issues in Generalized Quantifier Theory that poses problem of
analysis. However, Szabolcsi, argues that those problems arise due to the absence of fully
articulated compositional analysis. Szabocsi states that, GQ theory can accommodate so-

10

called referential indenites, non distributive readings of plurals and conjunctions, and
type multiplicity, and it could adopt the stipulation that the topics sets of all GQs are
presupposed to be non-empty. Szabolcsi analyses the scope interaction and the behaviours
of quantified NPs cross-linguistically.

2.6.

Syntax of Quantification :-

Anna Szabolcsi (2001), analyses the Theory of Quantifier

Scope in this article. Szabolcsi suggests that the scope of an operator such as, a quantifier, is
the domain within which the operator has the potentiality to affect the interpretation of
other expressions. For example, every boy affects the interpretation of the predicte by
inducing referential variation. She argues that the notion of scope is similar in both logic and
logical syntax. Szabolcsi argues that the surface structure S, directly determines the scope
interactions between different operators, such as, quantifiers, pronouns, negative polarity
items etc. She presents an analysis of the scope interactions of the quantifier phrases in
natural languages. According to Szabolcsi, if QE/1 is in the domain of QE/2 but not vise
versa, QE/1 must take wide scope. If both are in the domain of the other, the structure is
potentially ambiguous. If neither QE is in the domain of the other, they must be interpreted
independently. (here, QE stands for Quantified Expressions).
Szabolcsi reviews Montague (1974) in order to analyse the
rules of quantification in abstract syntax. Szabolcsi also reviews the Quantifier Raising
phenomena in natural languages and tries to draw an affinity between these two
approaches. She reviews the syntactic theories of scope reading from 1980s to the 1990s
Minimalism approach. She critiques those theories by stating that those theories only deal
with the syntax of quantifiers, such as every and some. Szabolcsi proposes that the
varying scope of indefinite quantifiers need to be attributed to unselective binding. She

11

argues that the indefinites should be treated as variables. Szabolcsi concludes by critiquing
whether the spell-out syntax is sufficient to capture the scope relationship of indefinite
quantifiers and whether the cross linguistic data uniformly supports such interpretations.
Christopher Kennedy (1997), proposes an account of
Antecedent contained deletion principle and analyses its relation to the syntactic theory of
Quantifier Raising. Kennedy argues that the matrix reading of the embedded ACD is present
in the Quantifier Raising account only if we assume that QR can move quantified DPs out of
non-finite clauses. He states that the wide scope interpretations of embedded quantifiers
are parallel to the matrix readings of embedded ACD. Kennedy suggests that the principles
that force the LF movements of lexical materials also force the PF movement, that is
interpreted at the interface level. According to him, quantifiers impose two requirements on
the sentence structure, firstly, a quantifier must bind a variable and secondly, nominal
quantification in natural language is restricted. Kennedy argues that the ACD, which show
that the Quantifier Raising selects both a quantificational determiner and its restriction,
gives evidence of the presence of this relationship at LF, as a relation between a head and
its complement. Kennedy argues that both the ACD analysis and Quantifier Raising Theory is
compatible with each other and presents the syntactic representation of the Quantifier in
the framework of the Quantifier Raising Theory..The syntactic representation of the
Quantification, that Kennedy proposes, is restricted quantification unlike the claims of
unrestricted quantification in natural language.

12

3. Survey of Bangla Quantifiers :Following is a description of the quantified expressions in Bangla, and
the Structure and behaviour of the Quantificational Phrases in Bangla. The various nominal
quantifiers and some adjectival and adverbial quantifiers are discussed.
3.1. Nominal Quantifiers :There are many quantifiers in Bangla. The Universal quantifier in
Bangla are the followings:- /sb/ (every), /sbai/ ( everyone), /sb kchu/ (everything). In
Bangla sentences, /sb/ quantifies over both animate and inanimate, ( count) NPs. In
Bangla, the meaning of / kchu / is some, which when occurs after / sb / denotes
inanimate object N. Followings example sentences show the occurrence of /sb/ in various
contexts:i.

sb

chele -ra

every boy

boi

porche

-plu.ani. Book read.Pres.con.

Every boy is reading.

ii.

sb

pul

-gulo

lal

every flower -plu.inani. red.

Every flower is red.
In the above sentences the set of entities/objects quantified by the Universal quantifier, /
sb / is restricted by the contexts.
The quantifiers in Bangla can be classified into + count
quantifiers, - count quantifiers, and ( count) quantifiers. The + count quantifiers in Bangla,
are, /protek / (each one ), /protiti/ (each thing), /nek gulo / (many), / nek/ (many),
/kekta/ (some of these) etc. The count quantifiers in Bangla, are, /lpo/ (some/a little),
/ektu/ (little), / nekta/ (much) etc. The ( count) quantifiers in Bangla, are, /kto/ ( so
many), /kichu/ (some) etc. There are also distinctions between animate and inanimate
quantifiers in Bangla.

13

In Bangla, the partitive quantifiers for( count) Nouns are the

followings, /rdh ek/ (half) , / rdh ek-er kichu besi/ (more than half), / rdh ek-er kichu km/
(less than half), / rdh ek-er ektu besi/ ( a littile more than half), /rdh ek-er ektu km/ ( a
little less than half). Sometimes the classifier / a/ suffixes with / rdh ek/ to denote
definiteness. For example :iii.

Ram rdh ek - a
Ram half

aam

kheche.

-clas. Mango eat.pres.perf.

Ram have had half of the mango.

3.2. Reduplicated Quantifiers :Another feature of the Bangla quantifiers are the reduplicated
quantifiers in Bangla. Some quantifiers are reduplicated in Bangla sentences to convey a
partitive reading. Moreover, some question particles are also reduplicated to express a
partitive quantification. For example, /kono kono/ (a few people /a few things, animate),
/keu keu/ (a few people/some people, + human), / lpo lpo/ (little), / eku eku/ (a little)
etc. Following sentences shows the occurance of these reduplicated quantifiers in Bangla :i.

kichu kichu boi

bhalo

some some book good

Some of the books are good.
ii.

kono kono lok bhalo

Some some people good
Some of the people are good.

iii.

Keu

keu

mela te

Some some fair

esechilo

-loc. come.perf.

Some of the people have come to the fair.

14

3.3. Adverbial and Adjectival Oquantifiers :The quantifiers in Bangla, sometimes occurs as an adjective or
adverbial modifiers. For example,
i.

eku jl
little water

ii.

lpo chini
some sugar
The example sentences shows the count quantifiers occurring as

an adjective modifier. The same quantifiers combined with a verb functions as an adverbial
modifiers. For example ,
iii.

eku h a
little walk/walking.

iv.

lpo

h a

some walk/walking.

In Bangla, the classifier, such as -a combines with the

quantifiers and takes on the function of a determiner and specifier. For example, /etoa /
(this much), /etokani / (this many), /etogulo/ ( this many ) etc.

15

3.4. Composite Quantifiers :There are some composite quantifiers in Bangla too. For
example, / lpo kichu/ (some/few, count), /eku kani / (some, -count), / eku besi/ (little
much) etc. These composite or complex quantifiers occur to denote the Partitive readings in
Bangla NPs. The composite quantifier / eku besi/ also occurs as an adverbial modifier. The
following sentences exemplifies the occurrence of these composite quantifiers in Bangla :i.

mela te lpo kichu lok

fair

-loc.

few

-i

eshechilo

people -emp. come.past.perf.

Few people had come to the fair.

ii.

ami
I

eku kani

jl

little

kabo

water drink.fut.

Ill drink a little water.

iii.

ami
I

eo uku

jl

kabo.

this much -emp. water drink.fut.

Ill drink only this much water.

In the above examples, the interaction of the composite quantifiers with the emphatic
markers occurs due to the shift of emphasis on the partitives. This phenomena requires
further research.

3.5. Implicit Quantification :The implicit quantification occurs in Bangla, by reduplicating a NP.
In sentences, where there is no overt quantifier present, the implicit quantifiers denote
plurality by reduplicating a singular set of individuals or objects. The following sentences
exemplify this phenomenon:-

16

i.

amar pthe pthe pathor chrano

my

road road

stone scatter.pres.

There are many stones in my roads.

ii.

ghre ghre

sei barta roti

-gelo krome.

House house that news spread -asp. Slowly

Slowly that news has spread in every house.
iii.

goli -te goli -te

baje

sanai

alley loc. alley -loc. play.pres. shehnai

Shehnai is being played in every alley.
iv.

kthaye kthaye nek d eri

word

word

hoe gelo

much late happen.perf.

It has got much late by talking (to you).

The examples shows that, by reduplicating the NPs with their case markers, the NP set is
doubled in the proposition and it denotes plurality. The reduplicated Noun Phrases in those
sentences behaves like an implicit quantifier,that quantifies over the set of entities/objects.

17

4. Analysis :The applications of the Generalized Quantifier Theory to the

Bangla language data has been analysed in the following sections.
4..1. Formalization :The Bangla quantifiers can be formalized following the framework of
the Generalized Quantifier theory. Quantifier is an operator that operates on the Nominal.
For example, x (x : Boy) denotes that every x is such that x is a boy. In Bangla, there is a
distinction between every and each. Following examples describes the distinction :i.

sb

chele -ra

Every boy

- plu

kh elche.
play.pres.con.

Every boy is playing.

ii.

protek chele

kh elche.

Each

play.pres.con.

boy

Each boy is playing.

So, we can formalize, both the quantifiers using the x (x : Boy) formulae. However, the
NP, protek chele denotes a specific and definite reading. The quantifier / protek/ quantifies over
a specific set of entities, i.e. boys , within a given context. Whereas, / sb/ quantifies over to a more
general set of individuals/boys within a larger context.

The partitive readings of the Bangla quantifiers can be formalized

using the set theoretic notions. For example :- the reduplicated quantifier /kono kono/ in
the sentence, kono kono lok bhalo can be formalized as, ,P: Person x} . For example, if
Ram includes the property set of being /bhalo/ (good), i.e. (R : p happy), and iff (R P) ,
then the proposition yields the truth value T.

18

4.2. Scope Interaction :The quantifier /kauke/ in Bangla is a + count and + human
quantifier. The following sentences shows the scope interaction between the negative
phrase (Neg.P.) and noun phrase (NP) in Bangla. For example :i.

ami kauke
I

cini

na

no one know neg.

I know no one./ I dont know anyone.

ii.

ami kauke kauke cini

I

na

some some know.pres. neg.

I dont know some people.

The quantifier /kauke/ in the example (iii) expresses that, everyone is such that I dont know
anyone. In this sentence the Neg takes scope over the NP. This can be formalized in first
order predicate calculus , as,
( : Person x) ( : Person y) [know(x,y)]
In the (iv) example, the NP takes wide scope over the Neg. This sentence expresses that,
there is some people such that I dont know him/her. This can be translated in the first
order logic, as,
( : Person y) ( : Person x) [know (x,y)]

19

5. Conclusion :In , this paper, the focus has been on the Semantics of
the Noun Phrases in general with special attention to the Quantificational Noun Phrases. I
have discussed the different approaches to quantification in Formal semantics and given an
overview of the literature. However, the main objective was to draw an uniform survey of
the different quantifiers in Bangla and propose some analysis following the Generalized
Quantifier Theory. Some of the quantifiers could have been captured using the formalism
and some of them have showed more ambiguity and complexity. Nonetheless, more in
depth further research is needed to resolved the unsolved issues in the semantics of
quantificational noun phrases in Bangla.

20

Reference List :-

1) Barwise, Jon. And Cooper, Robin. 1981. Generalized Quantifiers and Natural
Language. In Linguistics and Philosophy. Vol.4 : 159-219 (reprinted, e.g. , in
Portner, Paul.M. And Partee, Barbaba.Hall. 2002. Formal Semantics : The Essential
Readings. Oxford/Malden, MA : Blackwell Publishing.
2) Szabolcsi, Anna. 2010. Quantification. Cambridge/UK : Cambridge University Press.
3) Szabolcsi, Anna.2001. The Syntax of Scope. In The Handbook of Contemporary
Syntactic Theory. eds. Baltin, Mark. And Collins, Chris. pp: 607-633.
Oxford/Malden,MA : Blackwell Publishing.
4) Gennaro ,Chierchia. and McConnell-Ginet, Sally. 2000. Meaning and Grammar: An
Introduction to Semantics. 2nd ed. USA : MIT Press.
5) Portner, Paul.M. And Partee, Barbaba.Hall. (eds). 2002. Formal Semantics : The
Essential Readings. Oxford/Malden, MA : Blackwell Publishing.
6) Montague, Richard. 1973. The proper treatment of quantification in ordinary
English. In Hintika, K.J.J. , Moravcsik, J.M.E. and Suppes.(eds). Approaches to
Natural Language. Dordrecht : D.Reidel. pp : 221-42
7) Heim, Irene. And Kratzer, Angelika. 1998/2000. Semantics in Generative Grammar.
Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
8) Giannakidou, Anastasia. and Rathert, Monika.(eds). 2009. Quantication,
Deniteness, and Nominalization. New York : Oxford University Press.
9) Carlson, Gregory.N. 1980 . Reference to kinds in English. In Outstanding
Dissertations in Linguistics. (eds). Hankamer, Jorge. New York and London : Garland
Publishing.
10) Kennedy, Christopher. 1997. Antecedent- Contained Deletion and the Syntax of
Quantification. in Linguistic Inquiry. Vol.28. 4. pp. 662-688. Massachusetts : MIT
Press.
11) Bagchi, Tista. 2011. Quantification, Negation, and Focus : Challenges at the
Conceptual-Intentional Semantic Interface. Paper presented at Department of
Linguistics : Aligarh Muslim University, 25-27 Feb.

21

12) Partee, Barbara.H. 2004. Compositionality in Formal Semantics.

Oxford/Malden/Victoria : Blackwell Publishing.