David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Journal of Semantics 9 (1):69-93 (1992)
What do terms such as the committee, the league, and the group of women denote? Pre-theoretically, group terms have a dual personality. On the one hand, the committee corresponds to an entity as ideosyncratic in its properties as any other object; for instance, two otherwise identical committees can vary with respect to the purpose for which they were formed. Call this aspect the group-as-individual. On the other hand, the identity of a group is at least partially determined by the properties of its members; for instance, a committee will be a committee of women just in case each of its members is a woman. Call this aspect the group-as-set. Elaborating on suggestions in Link (1984) and Lasersohn (1988), I propose that group terms in English denote atomic individuals, that is, entities lacking internal structure. In particular, it is not possible to determine the membership of a group by examining the denotation of a group term. The proposed account correctly predicts that group terms systematically behave differently semantically (as well as syntactically) from plurals such as the men and conjunctions such as John and Bill. Thus the atomic analysis advocated here stands in sharp contrast to previous proposals, including Bennet (1975), Link (1984), and Landman (1989), in which group terms are considered of a piece semantically with plurals and conjunctions. Additional arguments come from the use of names of groups as rigid designators, from the parallel between group nouns and measure nouns, and from the distribution of group terms across two dialects of English
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Gennaro Chierchia (2010). Mass Nouns, Vagueness and Semantic Variation. Synthese 174 (1):99 - 149.
L. Brehm & K. Bock (2013). What Counts in Grammatical Number Agreement? Cognition 128 (2):149-169.
Similar books and articles
James J. Cappel & John C. Windsor (2000). Ethical Decision Making: A Comparison of Computer- Supported and Face-to-Face Group. [REVIEW] Journal of Business Ethics 28 (2):95 - 107.
André Nies (2007). Describing Groups. Bulletin of Symbolic Logic 13 (3):305-339.
Daniel M. Hausman (2007). Group Risks, Risks to Groups, and Group Engagement in Genetics Research. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 17 (4):351-369.
Nicholas S. Thompson (2000). Shifting the Natural Selection Metaphor to the Group Level. Behavior and Philosophy 28 (1/2):83 - 101.
Martha Nussbaum (2003). The Complexity of Groups: A Comment on Jorge Valadez. Philosophy and Social Criticism 29 (1):57-69.
Frank O. Wagner (1991). Small Stable Groups and Generics. Journal of Symbolic Logic 56 (3):1026-1037.
Rachael Briggs (2012). The Normative Standing of Group Agents. Episteme 9 (3):283-291.
Susana Nuccetelli (2004). Reference and Ethnic-Group Terms. Inquiry 47 (6):528 – 544.
Susana Nuccetelli (2004). Reference and Ethnic-Group Terms. Inquiry 47 (6):524-37.
Muhammad Maqsud (1982). Effects of Nigerian Children's Group Discussion on Their Moral Progression. Journal of Moral Education 11 (3):181-187.
Eric T. Juengst (1998). Groups as Gatekeepers to Genomic Research: Conceptually Confusing, Morally Hazardous, and Practically Useless. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 8 (2):183-200.
Samir Okasha & Cedric Paternotte (2012). Group Adaptation, Formal Darwinism and Contextual Analysis. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 25 (6):1127–1139.
Added to index2010-09-02
Total downloads8 ( #168,598 of 1,098,974 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #287,052 of 1,098,974 )
How can I increase my downloads?