Graduate studies at Western
Noûs 42 (1):207 - 231 (2008)
|Abstract||In this paper, I shall explore a determiner in natural language which is ambivalent as to whether it should be classiﬁed as quantiﬁcational or objectdenoting: the determiner both. Both in many ways appears to be a paradigmatic quantiﬁer; and yet, I shall argue, it can be interpreted as having an individual—an object—as semantic value. To show the signiﬁcance of this, I shall discuss two ways of thinking about quantiﬁers. We often think about quantiﬁers via intuitions about kinds of thoughts. Certain terms are naturally used to express singular thoughts, and appear to do so by contributing objects to the thoughts expressed. Other terms are naturally used to express general thoughts, and appear to do so by contributing higher-order properties to the thoughts expressed. Viewed this way, the main condition on whether a term is a quantiﬁer or not is whether its semantic value is an object or a higher-order property. At least, these provide necessary conditions. Both can be interpreted as contributing objects to thoughts, and in many cases appears to express genuine singular thoughts. Thinking about quantiﬁers this way, both can appear object-denoting and non-quantiﬁcational. We also often think about quantiﬁers in terms of a range linguistic features, including semantic value, presupposition, scope, binding, syntactic distribution, and many others. Viewed this way, I shall argue, both can appear quantiﬁcational. In particular, it displays scope behavior that is one of the hallmarks of quantiﬁcation. But, I shall show, it can do so even if given a semantics on which it denotes an object. Thus, both appears quantiﬁcational by some linguistic standards, and yet appears object-denoting by standards based on intuitions about the kinds..|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Charles Travis (2008). Occasion-Sensitivity: Selected Essays. Oxford University Press.
Michael Glanzberg (2007). Definite Descriptions and Quantifier Scope: Some Mates Cases Reconsidered. European Journal of Analytic Philosophy 3 (2):133-158.
José Luis Bermúdez (2003). 'I'-Thoughts and Explanation: Reply to Garrett. Philosophical Quarterly 53 (212):432–436.
Robert W. Lurz (2007). In Defense of Wordless Thoughts About Thoughts. Mind and Language 22 (3):270–296.
Tim Crane (2007). Intentionalism. In Ansgar Beckermann & Brian P. McLaughlin (eds.), Oxford Handbook to the Philosophy of Mind. Oxford University Press.
Sean Crawford (1998). In Defence of Object-Dependent Thoughts. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 98 (2):201-210.
Joshua Armstrong & Jason Stanley (2011). Singular Thoughts and Singular Propositions. Philosophical Studies 154 (2):205 - 222.
Ryan Nichols (2002). Reid on Fictional Objects and the Way of Ideas. Philosophical Quarterly 52 (209):582-601.
Teresa Marques (2006). On an Argument of Segal's Against Singular Object-Dependent Thoughts. Disputatio 2 (26):19-37.
Jody Azzouni (2011). Singular Thoughts (Objects-Directed Thoughts). Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume 85 (1):45-61.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads21 ( #65,479 of 738,548 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #61,778 of 738,548 )
How can I increase my downloads?