Philosophy East and West 57 (4):420-456 (2007)
|Abstract||: This essay critiques Chad Hansen’s "mass noun hypothesis," arguing that though most Classical Chinese nouns do function as mass nouns, this fact does not support the claim that pre-Qin thinkers treat the extensions of common nouns as mereological wholes, nor does it explain why they adopt nominalist semantic theories. The essay shows that early texts explain the use of common nouns by appeal to similarity relations, not mereological relations. However, it further argues that some early texts do characterize the relation between individuals and collections as a mereological relation.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Kwong-loi Shun (1997). Mencius and Early Chinese Thought. Stanford University Press.
Chris Fraser (2011). Knowledge and Error in Early Chinese Thought. Dao: A Journal of Comparative Philosophy 10 (2):127-148.
Henry Laycock (2011). Every Sum or Parts Which Are Water is Water. Humana Mente 19 (1):41-55.
Douglas L. Berger (2011). Did Buddhism Ever Go East?: The Westernization of Buddhism in Chad Hansen's Daoist Historiography. Philosophy East and West 61 (1):38-55.
Henry Laycock (2005). 'Mass Nouns, Count Nouns and Non-Count Nouns'. In Alex Barber (ed.), Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics. Elsevier.
Xiaomei Yang (2011). Do Differences in Grammatical Form Between Languages Explain Differences in Ontology Between Different Philosophical Traditions?: A Critique of the Mass-Noun Hypothesis. Dao: A Journal of Comparative Philosophy 10 (2):149-166.
Bo Mou (1999). The Structure of the Chinese Language and Ontological Insights: A Collective-Noun Hypothesis. Philosophy East and West 49 (1):45-62.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads27 ( #45,734 of 549,037 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #25,706 of 549,037 )
How can I increase my downloads?