By Friederike Moltmann
Summary gadgets were a significant subject in philosophy due to the fact antiquity. Philosophers have defended a variety of perspectives approximately summary gadgets by way of beautiful to metaphysical concerns, issues relating to arithmetic or technological know-how, and, now not sometimes, intuitions approximately normal language. This booklet pursues the query of the way and no matter if typical language permits connection with summary items in an absolutely systematic manner. by way of making complete use of up to date linguistic semantics, it provides a miles higher diversity of linguistic generalizations than has formerly been considered in philosophical discussions, and it argues for an ontological photo is especially diversified from that mostly taken with no consideration by way of philosophers and semanticists alike. connection with summary items resembling houses, numbers, propositions, and levels is significantly extra marginal than quite often held. in its place, average language is very beneficiant in permitting connection with particularized homes (tropes), using nonreferential expressions in obvious referential place, and using "nominalizing expressions," akin to quantifiers like "something." connection with summary items is completed in general simply by means of 'reifying terms', equivalent to "the quantity eight."
Read or Download Abstract Objects and the Semantics of Natural Language PDF
Similar semantics books
The temporal notions of typical languages are notoriously tricky to investigate. For the tenses of the English language, many alternative, incompatible techniques were attempted, and the final effect is that issues worsen if one seems on the phenomenon of element, approximately equivalent to the straightforward vs.
This publication combines a ancient and philosophical research of Russell's idea of descriptions. It defends, develops, and extends the idea as a contribution to average language semantics whereas additionally arguing for a reassessment of the significance of linguistic inquiry to Russell's philosophical undertaking.
In 1962 a mimeographed sheet of paper fell into my ownership. It were ready by way of Ernest Adams of the Philosophy division at Berkeley as a handout for a colloquim. Headed 'SOME FALLACIES OF FORMAL good judgment' it easily indexed 11 little items of reasoning, all in usual English, and all absurd.
This booklet discusses significant milestones in Rohit Jivanlal Parikh’s scholarly paintings. Highlighting the transition in Parikh’s curiosity from formal languages to typical languages, and the way he approached Wittgenstein’s philosophy of language, it strains the tutorial trajectory of an excellent pupil whose paintings unfolded a number of new avenues in study.
- Academic Discourse
- The Semantics of Polysemy: Reading Meaning in English and Warlpiri (Cognitive Linguistics Research) (Cognitive Linguistic Research)
- Indeterminacy in terminology and LSP : studies in honour of Heribert Picht
- Bourdieu, Language and the Media
Additional resources for Abstract Objects and the Semantics of Natural Language
To fulﬁll these two semantic roles, such quantiﬁcational NPs should not only be assigned a scope but also a nominalization domain. The nominalization domain consists of the material in the sentence that forms the basis for the reiﬁcation. The distinction between nominalization domain and scope will also be important for occurrences of special quantiﬁers in the place of predicates (Chapter 3). There are different ways of interpreting the nominalization domain. In the present case, the nominalization domain consists just of the trace in referential position left behind by the quantiﬁer when moving to its scope position at Logical Form.
Formally, the extended meaning of an episodic predicate will be as in (46a) and the extended meaning of a characterizing predicate as in (46b), where ‘K’ is a variable for kinds, ‘I’ the symbol for the instantiation relation (relativized to a circumstance, for example a time-world pair), and ‘Gn’ the generic quantiﬁer (as in Krifka et al. 1995): (46) a. For an episodic predicate P, [Pext] = ºi ºk[9d’(d’ Ii k & Pi(d’))]. b. For a characterizing predicate P, [Pext] = ºi ºk[Gn d’[d’ Ii k] Pi(d’)].
This would avoid reifying pluralities and modalized pluralities in particular. However, making use only of contextual divisions into subpluralities is not always possible. Just as in the case of plurals, there are contexts in which kinds (modalized pluralities) require reiﬁcation since they are themselves the objects of counting in those contexts. Reiﬁcation is required both for the count quantiﬁer several kinds of apples and the count quantiﬁers various things, several things, and two things below: 40 A B S T R A C T O B J E C T S A N D T H E S E M A N T I C S O F N AT U R A L L A N G UA G E (95) a.
Abstract Objects and the Semantics of Natural Language by Friederike Moltmann
- Experience and Philosophy: A Personal Record of - download pdf or read online
- New PDF release: Requesting in Social Interaction