There is a contemporary interpretation of ontological pluralism which formulatesthis thesis under the title of “recognition of ways of being”: that there are differentmodes of being, and things exist in different ways. On the other hand, it is commonin analytic philosophy to take quantifiers as pointers to our ontologicalcommitments. So, this contemporary interpretation brings ontological pluralismalong with quantification theory and accept  the plurality of existential quantifiers,which is better to be labeled as quantificational pluralism. In the following article,after explaining this interpretation, it will be discussed which quantifiers we should consider as the representation of our ontological commitments, and whether multiple quantifiers have overlapping domains. It also asks that, assuming theacceptance of multiple quantifiers, should we also accept the generic quantifier (used in the predicate logic and inspires a monistic interpretation of ontology)? To this end, four arguments for generic quantifier will be presented and, then refuted.However, in the end, generic quantifier prefers over pluralism.

In the current article, various methods of formulating hypothetical quantifier in Avicennian logic have been examined. Utilizing conventional symbols of quantifier in modern logic, analyzing hypothetical quantifier as modality, and employing second-order logic are the three approaches introduced in this paper. We have separately introduced the advantages and disadvantages of each of these methods. Each approach is useful in examining different interpretations of Ibn Sina's views on hypothetical quantifier and the disagreements among Avicennian logicians regarding hypothetical. Overall, we have shown that none of these methods are superior to others and each might be more useful than the rest in examining one of the existing disputes in Avicennian logic regarding hypothetical.

This paper investigates the External Merge position of the floating quantifier “ hame” (all) in Persian. quantifier floating has received two major analyses: stranding adverbial. In this paper, the former approach is shown to be more explanatorily justified. The paper provides evidence to indicate that “ hame” is adjoined acyclically to the argument DP after the DP moves from its θ-position, along the lines of Boskovic (2004). More specifically, quantifier floating is shown not to be possible from θ-positions. The evidence comes from the prosodic pattern of Persian unmarked sentences as well as the scope interaction of negation and the floating quantifier “ hame” . In regard to prosodic pattern of Persian unmarked sentences, main sentence stress has been argued by Kahnemuyipour (2009) to mark the left edge of vP. Floating quantifier is shown to occur before the element bearing main sentence stress in unmarked sentences, so it is claimed to be outside of vP, and therefore outside of the θ-position. As regards the second evidence, i. e. scope interaction, in negative sentences containing floating “ hame’ when negation is not focused, ‘ hame’ is constantly out of the scope of negation, and this means that in such sentences, neither the floating quantifier nor its copies are within the ccommanding domain of NegP. To put it another way, the base position of the floating quantifier is higher than NegP, which is argued to be between TP and vP. To determine the position of NegP in Persian, evidence is provided from negation in gerund phrases in Persian, and the scope interaction between manner and speaker-oriented adverbs on the one hand and between these adverbs and negation on the other. Showing that NegP is located between vP and TP within the scope of “ hame” , it is concluded that the External Merge position of quantifier is higher than vP, and therefore is outside the θ-domain.

This paper presents an analysis to cogent conditional quantifier. There are various approaches to the analysis of conditional quantifier. Some researchers have called this pseudo-quantifier and other authors have interpreted it as being based on temporal logic; or modal logic. In this paper after investigating and criticizing these approaches, we analyze instances of the cogent conditional quantifier in natural language. Then we determined their formulation in modern logic. Also we have investigated the presuppositions in the ancient logic. The truth of that logic deduction is based on those presuppositions. In the current approach, it becomes clear that the cogent conditional quantifier can only be analyzed on the basis of relevant logic and modal logic. Also for truth of deductions, acceptance of two presuppositions "the possibility of the antecedent" and "the necessity of relevance of the antecedent and the consequence in the universals" is necessary.

quantifiers basically occur adjacent to a nominal phrase. However, sometimes the quantifier and the nominal phrase appear apart in sentences. This phenomenon is referred to as quantifier floating (Q-floating). The most prominent approach to Q-floating is stranding analysis, according to which the quantifier and the adjacent nominal phrase together make up a single constituent, and in the course of derivation, the nominal phrase moves from this constituent to a higher position, stranding the quantifier in situ; in other words, stranding analysis considers the floating quantifier construction as the result of a transformation from non-floating quantifier construction. This paper addresses the structure of floating and non-floating quantifier constructions, provides evidence from Persian to indicate the independence of their structures, and argues for the oblige toriness of each structure. The floating quantifier is shown to be a late adjunct to a copy of its associated DP: in the derivation leading to quantifier floating, a DP moves from its θ-position and then receives a QP as an adjunct, and then it moves again to a higher position and strands the quantifier in situ.  According to Chomsky’s (2013) Labeling Algorithm, when QP is an adjunct to DP, the movement of DP and it’s leaving the QP behind is obligatory; to put it another way, floating quantifier construction is obligatory. As opposed to floating quantifier construction, in non-floating quantifier construction, QP is not an adjunct. In this construction, the DP is the complement of the quantifier head. Given Labeling Algorithm, this construction is obligatorily motivated, too. In addition, since quantifier phrase is the topmost nominal phrase in such constructions, it is a phase; and in order for the DP to move out of this phase, it needs to move first to the specifier position of the QP, but this movement is considered too short. For this reason, DP cannot move off the QP in non-floating quantifier constructions

The current paper is an attempt to analyze the Avicennian Cogent conditional quantifier based on Second-order Logic. Contemporary researchers have provided various formalizations of Avicennian conditionals to the Modern Logic language. A major difference between these formalizations is the analysis of conditional quantifier. In the most recent studies, Khajeh Nasir al-Din Toosi views about conditional quantifier, is used for analysis. His analysis of conditional quantifier can be formalized by Second order Logic language. Therefore, some analyses are proposed to show using the Second order Logic, the Avicennian cogent conditional finally could be formalized by Relevant Logic and Modal Logic. In this paper, it is shown this analysis is true assuming a temporal consequent and antecedent. Because of this assumption, the analysis has some difficulties. In order to solve this issue, we based the analysis on the assumption of temporal consequent and antecedent then analyzed the cogent conditional using Second order Logic, Temporal Logic, Relevant Logic, and Modal Logic. The resulting formalization is a combination of Relevant Logic, Temporal Logic and Modal Logic.

Grice puts an end to the disputes between propositional logic and natural language by fully enclosing their respective fields. He employs logic to semantics and natural language to pragmatics. This article claims that with the substitutional interpretation of quantifier, we are in a better position to extend Grice’s idea to cover the predicate logic as well and resolve paradoxes of this field. Strictly speaking, by adding a fifth principle to Grice’s fourfold, this article is aimed to demonstrate how appropriateness of quantified statements in natural language is tied to their implicatures and how it has nothing to do with their truth values. That is, by distinguishing between semantical meaning of quantifier and pragmatical meaning, the author inclines to substitutional interpretation. Likewise, because of the fact that a quantifier is closely related to the proper name, we extend our claim about quantifiers to the field of proper names by drawing on the names that do not name.

Semantic is one of the most important features in the study of native language learning process. The study of what children know about meanings in different levels would be away for achieving how the human becomes a speaker of a language. The aim of this study is evaluating children’s understanding of semantic contribution of the universal quantifier “every” at the across-proposition level. Investigating children’s computation of the across-propositional meaning relations involving the universal quantifier “every” would thus not only be the next valuable step to consider their knowledge about the semantics of “every”, but also would make a significant contribution toward a new aspect of children’s semantic competence. In this study, a new experiment evaluates the children’s ability in inferences between entailing and entailed sentences. For sampling, 28 girls aged 3-6 years were selection randomly. Finally, the results confirmed that the competence of children is like adults with regard to the semantics in the composition and comparison of sentential meanings.

The field of comparative analysis on Persian and Arabic grammars and in contrast to number and counted nouns discourses in both languages it is revealed that there is a numerical composition in either double-bases (simple) or triple- bases (it has counting conjunction or counting unit in Persian and quantifier in Arabic). This categorization may itself open some other new classes and lead to purposing of new topics and amendment of some grammatical functions in both languages where these subjects have been discussed in the present paper.

The purpose of Multi-modal Multi-criteria Personalized Route Planning (MMPRP) is to provide an optimal route between an origin-destination pair by considering weights of effective criteria, in which this route could be a combination of public and private transportation modes. In recent studies, the weighted linear aggregation rules were developed to calculate the impedance of links that were high tradeoff decision strategies. A decision strategy defines whether a user insists on satisfying all of his/her preferences regarding the selection of one route from a set of routes or he/she would be happy if the most of criteria would be satisfied. In this paper, a fuzzy analytical hierarchy process (fuzzy AHP) and quantifier-guided ordered weighted averaging (Q-OWA) operators were integrated to calculate the impedance of links. Fuzzy analytical hierarchy process (fuzzy AHP) weighting method by Saaty embeds fuzzy theory to basic AHP method. In AHP weighting method, a matrix-liked structure is considered by pairwise comparison between criteria with exact numbers. Despite the general popularity, the AHP method is not capable to consider the users’ ambiguity and the lack of clarity in their preferences. To solve this problem of the AHP method, the fuzzy AHP method was proposed to use fuzzy numbers rather than exact ones in pairwise comparisons. In this research, the triangular fuzzy numbers was used for these pairwise comparisons.To model a family of parameterized decision strategies, Yager introduced the ordered weighted averaging (OWA) operators. This method calculates the user’s risk taking and risk aversion, as well as enters them for selecting the final option. quantifier-guided OWA is obtained by integrating the fuzzy linguistic quantifiers with the OWA operators. In this study, a class of relative quantifiers, called “Regular Increasing Monotone (RIM)” was used. The main characteristic of these methods is supporting the different decision strategies in calculating the impedances. In this method, the user determines the relative weights with fuzzy AHP method at first. Then by considering his/her desired decision strategy, impedance of the links were calculated. The proposed model can also propose the robust personalized route under the different decision strategies. By considering the different decision strategies, this model provides different routes. Then, by determining minimum and maximum impedance of each link, the model presents the robust personalized route. In this study, subway, BRT, bus, taxi, and walking transportation modes were considered for traveling between nodes. Moreover, time, length, and user’s bother of each transportation mode were considered as effective criteria. This model was implemented in an area in the center of Tehran. The considered area had 21 km2 and consisted of 2 BRT lines, 28 sweep bus lines, and 4 sweep subway lines, and totally more than 45 km of roads. The proposed method was implemented for one of the most crowed path in our case study, i.e., a path from Baharestan square to Enghelab square. Initially, the devoted configuration wizard for the pairwise compression were presented to 45 users (9 users for any decision strategy) and they were asked to weight the criteria. Then, the relative importance of each criterion was calculated by considering the weights assigned within the pairwise compression matrix. Afterwards, they were asked to determine their desirable decision strategies, including “at least one”, “half”, “many” and “all”. Results showed that on average 80.66% of the users with different decision strategies, selected the model proposed route as the best route.