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 (2011)
| Abstract | It is an assumed view in Chinese philosophy that the grammatical differences between English or Indo-European languages and classical Chinese explain some of the differences between the Western and Chinese philosophical discourses. Although some philosophers have expressed doubts about the general link between classical Chinese philosophy and syntactic form of classical Chinese, I discuss a specific hypothesis, i.e., the mass-noun hypothesis, in this essay. The mass-noun hypothesis assumes that a linguistic distinction such as between the singular terms and the predicates is sufficient to justify or necessarily leads to a specific ontological distinction such as the distinction between the particular and the universal. I argue that one cannot read off semantic properties simply from syntactic ones and hence the syntactic differences do not automatically translate into the semantic differences between languages, that the syntactic features of Chinese nouns do not have explanatory significance in explaining why the particular-universal problem does not arise in the classical period of Chinese philosophy, and that the part-whole ontology allegedly informed by the mass-noun-like semantics does not provide a natural or intuitive picture of the language-world relation | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,679 |
| External links |
 |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesBo Mou (1999). The Structure of the Chinese Language and Ontological Insights: A Collective-Noun Hypothesis. Philosophy East and West 49 (1):45-62.
Chris Fraser (2007). Language and Ontology in Early Chinese Thought. Philosophy East and West 57 (4):420-456.
Henry Laycock (2005). 'Mass Nouns, Count Nouns and Non-Count Nouns'. In Alex Barber (ed.), Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics. Elsevier.
Gerard Kempen (2000). Could Grammatical Encoding and Grammatical Decoding Be Subserved by the Same Processing Module? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 23 (1):38-39.
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.
Chad Hansen (2001). How Chinese Thought “Shapes” Western Thought. The Proceedings of the Twentieth World Congress of Philosophy 2001:25-40.
Gennaro Chierchia (2010). Mass Nouns, Vagueness and Semantic Variation. Synthese 174 (1).
Wüliam J. Rapaport (1981). How to Make the World Fit Our Language. Grazer Philosophische Studien 14:1-21.
Kathrin Koslicki (1999). The Semantics of Mass-Predicates. Noûs 33 (1):46-91.
Chenshan Tian (2002). Tongbian in the Chinese Reading of Dialectical Materialism. Philosophy East and West 52 (1):126-144.
Martin Stokhof (2007). Hand or Hammer? On Formal and Natural Languages in Semantics. Journal of Indian Philosophy 35 (5-6):597-626.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2011-04-06Total downloads14 ( #83,117 of 549,084 )Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,317 of 549,084 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
