|Abstract||Mass and plural expressions show some interesting similarities, suggesting they should be analyzed in a similar way. For example, both exhibit cumulative reference, as noted by Quine (1960: 91); that is, they license inferences like those in (1): (1) a. A is water and B is water; therefore A and B together are water. b. A are apples and B are apples; therefore A and B together are apples. Singular count nouns do not license the same kind of inference; (2) is invalid: (2) A is an apple and B is an apple; therefore A and B together are an apple.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Only published papers are available at libraries|
Similar books and articles
H. W. Noonan (1978). Count Nouns and Mass Nouns. Analysis 38 (4):167 - 172.
Henry Laycock (2005). 'Mass Nouns, Count Nouns and Non-Count Nouns'. In Alex Barber (ed.), Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics. Elsevier.
Roger Schwarzschild, Stubborn Distributivity, Multiparticipant Nouns and the Count/Mass Distinction.
Henry Laycock (2006). Variables, Generality and Existence. In Paulo Valore (ed.), Topics on General and Formal Ontology. Polimetrica.
David Nicolas (2008). Mass Nouns and Plural Logic. Linguistics and Philosophy 31 (2):211 - 244.
Henry Laycock (2011). Every Sum or Parts Which Are Water is Water. Humana Mente 19 (1):41-55.
Nino B. Cocchiarella (2009). Mass Nouns in a Logic of Classes as Many. Journal of Philosophical Logic 38 (3):343 - 361.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads88 ( #10,080 of 722,745 )
Recent downloads (6 months)5 ( #17,032 of 722,745 )
How can I increase my downloads?