Polarity in natural language: Predication, quantification and negation in particular and characterizing sentences [Book Review]
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Linguistics and Philosophy 23 (3):213-308 (2000)
The present paper is an attempt at the investigation of the nature of polarity contrast in natural languages. Truth conditions for natural language sentences are incomplete unless they include a proper definition of the conditions under which they are false. It is argued that the tertium non datur principle of classical bivalent logical systems is empirically invalid for natural languages: falsity cannot be equated with non-truth. Lacking a direct intuition about the conditions under which a sentence is false, we need an independent foundation of the concept of falsity. The solution I offer is a definition of falsity in terms of the truth of a syntactic negation of the sentence. A definition of syntactic negation is proposed for English (Section 1). The considerations are applied to the analysis of definites in non-generic sentences and the analysis of generic indefinites. These two domains are investigated in breadth and some depth and the analyses compared and connected. During the discussion of non-generic predications with definite arguments and their respective negations (Section 2), a theory of predication is developed, basic to which is the distinction between integrative and summative predication. Summative predication, e.g., distributive plural, leads to contrary, all-or-no-thing, polarity contrasts due to the fundamental Presupposition of Indivisibility. Further-more, levels of predication are distinguished that are built up by various processes of constructing macropredications from lexical predicates. Given this analysis, particular (i.e., non-generic) quantification (Section 3) can be reanalyzed as an integrative, first-order form of predication that fills the truth-value gaps created by summative predication. The account comprises both nominal and adverbial quantification and relates quantification to the simpler types of predication discussed in Section 2.
|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
Luis Alonso-Ovalle (2009). Counterfactuals, Correlatives, and Disjunction. Linguistics and Philosophy 32 (2):207-244.
Emmanuel Chemla (2009). Presuppositions of Quantified Sentences: Experimental Data. [REVIEW] Natural Language Semantics 17 (4):299-340.
Similar books and articles
Frank A. Lewis (2011). “Predication, Things, and Kinds in Aristotle's Metaphysics”. Phronesis 56 (4):350-387.
Gabriel Sandu (1994). Some Aspects of Negation in English. Synthese 99 (3):345 - 360.
Dale Jacquette (2010). Circularity or Lacunae in Tarski's Truth-Schemata. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 19 (3):315-326.
Alessandro Lenci (1998). The Structure of Predication. Synthese 114 (2):233-276.
Richard Gaskin (2008). The Unity of the Proposition. Oxford University Press.
Ernesto Napoli (2006). Negation. Grazer Philosophische Studien 72 (1):233-252.
Donald Davidson (2005). Truth and Predication. Harvard University Press.
Thomas J. McKay (2006). Plural Predication. Oxford University Press.
Kathrin Koslicki (1999). Genericity and Logical Form. Mind and Language 14 (4):441–467.
Mireille Staschok (2008). Non-Traditional Squares of Predication and Quantification. Logica Universalis 2 (1):77-85.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads21 ( #88,188 of 1,140,004 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #157,514 of 1,140,004 )
How can I increase my downloads?