§1. Introduction. After the pioneering work of Mostowski [29] and Lindström [23] it was Jon Barwise's papers [2] and [3] that brought abstract model theory and generalized quantifiers to the attention of logicians in the early seventies. These papers were greeted with enthusiasm at the prospect that model theory could be developed by introducing a multitude of extensions of first order logic, and by proving abstract results about relationships holding between properties of these logics. Examples of such properties areκ-compactness.Any set (...) of sentences of cardinality ≤ κ, every finite subset of which has a model, has itself a model.Löwenheim-Skolem Theorem down toκ.If a sentence of the logic has a model, it has a model of cardinality at most κ.Interpolation Property.If ϕ and ψ are sentences such that ⊨ ϕ → Ψ, then there is θ such that ⊨ ϕ → θ, ⊨ θ → Ψ and the vocabulary of θ is the intersection of the vocabularies of ϕ and Ψ.Lindstrom's famous theorem characterized first order logic as the maximal ℵ0-compact logic with Downward Löwenheim-Skolem Theorem down to ℵ0. With his new concept of absolute logics Barwise was able to get similar characterizations of infinitary languagesLκω. But hopes were quickly frustrated by difficulties arising left and right, and other areas of model theory came into focus, mainly stability theory. No new characterizations of logics comparable to the early characterization of first order logic given by Lindström and of infinitary logic by Barwise emerged. What was first called soft model theory turned out to be as hard as hard model theory. (shrink)

We give a condensed survey of recent research on generalized quantifiers in logic, linguistics and computer science, under the following headings: Logical definability and expressive power, Polyadic quantifiers and linguistic definability, Weak semantics and axiomatizability, Computational semantics, Quantifiers in dynamic settings, Quantifiers and modal logic, Proof theory of generalized quantifiers.

The concept of a generalized quantifier of a given similarity type was defined in [12]. Our main result says that on finite structures different similarity types give rise to different classes of generalized quantifiers. More exactly, for every similarity type t there is a generalized quantifier of type t which is not definable in the extension of first order logic by all generalized quantifiers of type smaller than t. This was proved for unary similarity types by Per Lindström [17] with (...) a counting argument. We extend his method to arbitrary similarity types. (shrink)

We obtain an almost everywhere quantifier elimination for (the noncritical fragment of) the logic with probability quantifiers, introduced by the first author in [10]. This logic has quantifiers like $\exists ^{ \ge 3/4} y$ which says that "for at least 3/4 of all y". These results improve upon the 0-1 law for a fragment of this logic obtained by Knyazev [11]. Our improvements are: 1. We deal with the quantifier $\exists ^{ \ge r} y$ , where y is a tuple (...) of variables. 2. We remove the closedness restriction, which requires that the variables in y occur in all atomic subformulas of the quantifier scope. 3. Instead of the unbiased measure where each model with universe n has the same probability, we work with any measure generated by independent atomic probabilities pR for each predicate symbol R. 4. We extend the results to parametric classes of finite models (for example, the classes of bipartite graphs, undirected graphs, and oriented graphs). 5. We extend the results to a natural (noncritical) fragment of the infinitary logic with probability quantifiers. 6. We allow each pR , as well as each r in the probability quantifier $(\exists ^{ \ge r} y)$ , to depend on the size of the universe. (shrink)

The concept of a generalized quantifier of a given similarity type was defined in [12]. Our main result says that on finite structures different similarity types give rise to different classes of generalized quantifiers. More exactly, for every similarity typetthere is a generalized quantifier of typetwhich is not definable in the extension of first order logic by all generalized quantifiers of type smaller thant. This was proved for unary similarity types by Per Lindström [17] with a counting argument. We extend (...) his method to arbitrary similarity types. (shrink)

§1. Introduction. After the pioneering work of Mostowski [29] and Lindström [23] it was Jon Barwise's papers [2] and [3] that brought abstract model theory and generalized quantifiers to the attention of logicians in the early seventies. These papers were greeted with enthusiasm at the prospect that model theory could be developed by introducing a multitude of extensions of first order logic, and by proving abstract results about relationships holding between properties of these logics. Examples of such properties areκ-compactness.Any set (...) of sentences of cardinality ≤ κ, every finite subset of which has a model, has itself a model.Löwenheim-Skolem Theorem down toκ.If a sentence of the logic has a model, it has a model of cardinality at most κ.Interpolation Property.If ϕ and ψ are sentences such that ⊨ ϕ → Ψ, then there is θ such that ⊨ ϕ → θ, ⊨ θ → Ψ and the vocabulary of θ is the intersection of the vocabularies of ϕ and Ψ.Lindstrom's famous theorem characterized first order logic as the maximal ℵ0-compact logic with Downward Löwenheim-Skolem Theorem down to ℵ0. With his new concept of absolute logics Barwise was able to get similar characterizations of infinitary languagesLκω. But hopes were quickly frustrated by difficulties arising left and right, and other areas of model theory came into focus, mainly stability theory. No new characterizations of logics comparable to the early characterization of first order logic given by Lindström and of infinitary logic by Barwise emerged. What was first called soft model theory turned out to be as hard as hard model theory. (shrink)