Search results for 'Bare plurals' (try it on Scholar)

1000+ found
Sort by:
  1. Eytan Zweig (2009). Number-Neutral Bare Plurals and the Multiplicity Implicature. Linguistics and Philosophy 32 (4):353-407.score: 240.0
    Bare plurals (dogs) behave in ways that quantified plurals (some dogs) do not. For instance, while the sentence John owns dogs implies that John owns more than one dog, its negation John does not own dogs does not mean “John does not own more than one dog”, but rather “John does not own a dog”. A second puzzling behavior is known as the dependent plural reading; when in the scope of another plural, the ‘more than one’ meaning (...)
    Direct download (9 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  2. Ariel Cohen & Nomi Erteschik-Shir (2002). Topic, Focus, and the Interpretation of Bare Plurals. Natural Language Semantics 10 (2):125-165.score: 180.0
    In this paper we show that focus structure determines the interpretation of bare plurals in English: topic bare plurals are interpreted generically, focused bare plurals are interpreted existentially. When bare plurals are topics they must be specific, i.e. they refer to kinds. After type-shifting they introduce variables which can be bound by the generic quantifier, yielding characterizing generics. Existentially interpreted bare plurals are not variables, but denote properties that are incorporated (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  3. A. Cohen (2005). More Than Bare Existence: An Implicature of Existential Bare Plurals. Journal of Semantics 22 (4):389-400.score: 180.0
    Existential bare plurals (e.g. dogs) have the same semantics as explicit existentials (e.g. a dog or some dogs) but different pragmatics. In addition to entailing the existence of a set of individuals, existential bare plurals implicate that this set is suitable for some purpose. The suitability implicature is a form of what has been variously called informativeness-based or R-based implicature. Condoravdi (1992, 1994) and others have claimed that bare plurals have a third reading (in (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  4. Kai von Fintel (1997). Bare Plurals, Bare Conditionals, and Only. Journal of Semantics 14 (1):1-56.score: 150.0
    The compositional semantics of sentences like Only mammals give live birth and The flag flies only if the Queen is home is a tough problem. Evidence is presented to show that only here is modifying an underlying proposition (its ‘prejacent’). After discussing the semantics of only, the question of the proper interpretation of the prejacent is explored. It would be nice if the prejacent could be analyzed as having existential quantificational force. But that is difficult to maintain, since the prejacent (...)
    Direct download (10 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  5. Peter Lasersohn (1997). Bare Plurals and Donkey Anaphora. Natural Language Semantics 5 (1):79-86.score: 150.0
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  6. Brendan S. Gillon (1990). Bare Plurals as Plural Indefinite Noun Phrases. In Kyburg Henry E., Loui Ronald P. & Carlson Greg N. (eds.), Knowledge Representation and Defeasible Reasoning. Kluwer. 119--166.score: 150.0
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  7. Greg N. Carlson (1977). A Unified Analysis of the English Bare Plural. Linguistics and Philosophy 1 (3):413 - 456.score: 100.0
    It is argued that the English bare plural (an NP with plural head that lacks a determiner), in spite of its apparently diverse possibilities of interpretation, is optimally represented in the grammar as a unified phenomenon. The chief distinction to be dealt with is that between the generic use of the bare plural (as in Dogs bark) and its existential or indefinite plural use (as in He threw oranges at Alice). The difference between these uses is not to (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  8. Friederike Moltmann (2013). The Semantics of Existence. Linguistics and Philosophy 36 (1):31-63.score: 90.0
    The notion of existence is a very puzzling one philosophically. Often philosophers have appealed to linguistic properties of sentences stating existence. However, the appeal to linguistic intuitions has generally not been systematic and without serious regard of relevant issues in linguistic semantics. This paper has two aims. On the one hand, it will look at statements of existence from a systematic linguistic point of view, in order to try to clarify what the actual semantics of such statements in fact is. (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  9. Giorgio Magri (2009). A Theory of Individual-Level Predicates Based on Blind Mandatory Scalar Implicatures. Natural Language Semantics 17 (3):245-297.score: 74.0
    Predicates such as tall or to know Latin, which intuitively denote permanent properties, are called individual-level predicates. Many peculiar properties of this class of predicates have been noted in the literature. One such property is that we cannot say #John is sometimes tall. Here is a way to account for this property: this sentence sounds odd because it triggers the scalar implicature that the alternative John is always tall is false, which cannot be, given that, if John is sometimes tall, (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  10. Dolf Rami, Existence and Free Logic.score: 60.0
    In this paper I aim to defend a first‐order non‐discriminating property view concerning existence. The version of this view that I prefer is based on negative (or a specific neutral) free logic that treats the existence predicate as first‐order logical predicate. I will provide reasons why such a view is more plausible than a second‐order discriminating property view concerning existence and I will also discuss four challenges for the proposed view and provide solutions to them.
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  11. Jo-Wang Lin (1999). Double Quantification and the Meaning of Shenme 'What' in Chinese Bare Conditionals. Linguistics and Philosophy 22 (6):573-593.score: 60.0
    This paper shows that the semantics of shenme ‘what’ in Chinese bare conditionals may exhibit a phenomenon of double quantification. I argue that such double quantification can be nicely accounted for if one adopts Carlson's (1977a, b) semantics of bare plurals and verb meanings as well as the following two assumptions: (i) shenme ‘what’ can be a proform of bare NPs and hence has the same kind of denotation as bare NPs, and (ii) Chinese (...) NPs are names of kinds of things. This analysis of Chinese bare conditionals lends support to Carlson's approach to bare plurals despite Wilkinson's (1991) criticisms. I also show that an extension of Heim's (1987) analysis of what as ‘something of kind x’ to Chinese shenme ‘what’ encounters problems when shenme ‘what’ is a shared constituent of a predicate which applies to kinds and another predicate which applies to objects. (shrink)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  12. Greg N. Carlson (1977). A Unified Treatment of the English Bare Plural. In P. Portner & B. H. Partee (eds.), Formal Semantics - the Essential Readings. Blackwell. 35--75.score: 60.0
    No categories
    Translate to English
    |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  13. Luisa Martí (2008). The Semantics of Plural Indefinite Noun Phrases in Spanish and Portuguese. Natural Language Semantics 16 (1):1-37.score: 44.0
    In this paper I provide a decompositional analysis of three kinds of plural indefinites in two related languages, European Spanish and Brazilian Portuguese. The three indefinites studied are bare plurals, the unos (Spanish)/uns (Portuguese) type, and the algunos (Spanish)/alguns (Portuguese) type. The paper concentrates on four properties: semantic plurality, positive polarity, partitivity, and event distribution. The logic underlying the analysis is that of compositionality, applied at the subword level: as items become bigger in form (with the addition of (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  14. C. Ebert & S. Hinterwimmer (2010). Quantificational Variability Effects with Plural Definites: Quantification Over Individuals or Situations? Journal of Semantics 27 (2):139-176.score: 40.0
    In this paper, we discuss the fact that not only adverbially quantified sentences with singular indefinites or bare plurals but also ones containing plural definites show Quantificational Variability Effects (QVEs), that is, they receive readings according to which the quantificational force of the respective DP seems to depend on the quantificational force of the Q-adverb. We show that if the Q-adverb is a frequency adverb like usually, there is strong evidence that QVEs come about as indirect effects of (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  15. Andrea Wilhelm (2008). Bare Nouns and Number in Dëne Sųłiné. Natural Language Semantics 16 (1):39-68.score: 38.0
    This paper documents the number-related properties of Dëne Sųłiné (Athapaskan). Dëne Sųłiné has neither number inflection nor numeral classifiers. Nouns are bare, occur as such in argument positions, and combine directly with numerals. With these traits, Dëne Sųłiné represents a type of language that is little considered in formal typologies of number and countability. The paper critiques one influential proposal, that of Chierchia (in: Rothstein (ed.) Events and grammar, 1998a; Natural Language Semantics 6: 339–405, 1998b), and presents an alternative (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  16. Elizabeth Ferch (2013). Scopeless Quantity Words in Shona. Natural Language Semantics 21 (4):373-400.score: 34.0
    In Shona , bare plurals and bare singulars seem to have different scope possibilities with respect to a class of modifiers which I term “scopeless quantity words” few’, and ose ‘all’). I argue that this is due to two factors. First, the scopeless quantity words are intersective modifiers rather than quantifying determiners, so that DPs containing them denote entities rather than generalised quantifiers. Second, transitive sentences involving plural arguments are usually interpreted using the **-operator, which gives a (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  17. Giuseppe Longobardi (2001). How Comparative is Semantics? A Unified ParametricTheory of Bare Nouns and Proper Names. Natural Language Semantics 9 (4):335-369.score: 32.0
    One of the two central suggestions put forth in Longobardi (1991, 1994) was that Romance/English differences in the syntax of proper names were parametrically connected to supposed differences in the semantics of bare (plural and mass) common nouns (BNs). The present article will pursue this line of investigation, trying to make precise such meaning differences and to understand the reason for their apparently surprising parametric association with the syntax of proper names.It will be shown that in most Romance varieties (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  18. Berit Brogaard (2010). Descriptions. In Oxford Annotated Bibliographies Online.score: 30.0
    Descriptions are phrases of the form ‘an F’, ‘the F’, ‘Fs’ and ‘the Fs’. They can be indefinite (e.g., ‘an F’ and ‘Fs’), definite (e.g. ‘the F’ and ‘the Fs’), singular (e.g., ‘an F’, ‘the F’) and plural (e.g., ‘the Fs’, ‘Fs’). In English plural indefinite descriptions lack an article and are for that reason also known as ‘bare plurals’.
    No categories
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  19. Berit Brogaard (2010). Descriptions: An Annotated Bibliography. Oxford Annotated Bibliographies Online.score: 30.0
    Descriptions are phrases of the form ‘an F’, ‘the F’, ‘Fs’, ‘the Fs’ and NP's F (e.g. ‘John's mother’). They can be indefinite (e.g., ‘an F’ and ‘Fs’), definite (e.g. ‘the F’ and ‘the Fs’), singular (e.g., ‘an F’, ‘the F’) or plural (e.g., ‘the Fs’, ‘Fs’). In English plural indefinite descriptions lack an article and are for that reason also known as ‘bare plurals’. How to account for the semantics and pragmatics of descriptions has been one of (...)
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  20. Hiroki Nomoto (forthcoming). A General Theory of Bare “Singular” Kind Terms. In Proceedings of the Poster Session of the 29th Annual West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL 29).score: 30.0
    Dayal’s (2004) theory of kind terms accounts for the definiteness and number marking patterns in kind terms in many languages. Brazilian Portuguese has been claimed to be a counter-example to her theory as it seems to allow bare “singular” kind terms, which are predicted to be impossible according to her theory. However, the empirical status of the relevant data has not been clear so far. This paper presents a new data point from Singlish and confirms the existence of (...) “singular” kind terms. A revised theory of kind terms is proposed that accounts for it. The proposed theory puts forth a number system with three basic categories, i.e. singular, plural and general. It is claimed that bare “singular” kind terms are in fact derived from general NPs, which are associated with number-neutral properties. The paper also discusses why bare “singular” kind terms are not perfectly acceptable in Brazilian Portuguese. (shrink)
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  21. Hanoch Ben-Yami (2014). Bare Quantifiers? Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 95 (2):175-188.score: 30.0
    In a series of publications I have claimed that by contrast to standard formal languages, quantifiers in natural language combine with a general term to form a quantified argument, in which the general term's role is to determine the domain or plurality over which the quantifier ranges. In a recent paper Zoltán Gendler Szabó tried to provide a counterexample to this analysis and derived from it various conclusions concerning quantification in natural language, claiming it is often ‘bare’. I show (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  22. Donka F. Farkas, Varieties of Indefinites.score: 30.0
    Languages that have determiners often have a rich inventory of them. In English, indefinite determiners include a(n), some, a certain, this, one, another, cardinals, partitives, the zero determiner of bare plurals (in some analyses), and, according to Horn 1999 and Giannakidou 2001, any. Despite the attention indefinites have received in the literature, characterizing what is common to all of them and what is specific to each is still an elusive task. This paper investigates the first three determiners in (...)
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  23. A. Cohen (2001). On the Generic Use of Indefinite Singulars. Journal of Semantics 18 (3):183-209.score: 30.0
    The distribution of indefinite singular generics is much more restricted than that of bare plural generics. The former, unlike the latter, seem to require that the property predicated of their subject be, in some sense, ‘definitional’. Moreover, the two constructions exhibit different scopal behaviour, and differ in their felicity in conjunctions, questions, and expressions describing the speaker's confidence. I propose that the reason is that the two expressions, in fact, have rather different meanings. Carlson (1995) makes a distinction between (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  24. Danny Fox (1995). Economy and Scope. Natural Language Semantics 3 (3):283-341.score: 30.0
    This paper argues in favor of two claims: (a) that Scope Shifting Operations (Quantifier Raising and Quantifier Lowering) are restricted by economy considerations, and (b) that the relevant economy considerations compare syntactic derivations that end up interpretively identical. These ideas are shown to solve several puzzles having to do with the interaction of scope with VP ellipsis, coordination, and the interpretation of bare plurals. Further, the paper suggests a way of dealing with the otherwise puzzling clause-boundedness of Quantifier (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  25. Lisa Matthewson (2001). Quantification and the Nature of Crosslinguistic Variation. Natural Language Semantics 9 (2):145-189.score: 30.0
    The standard analysis of quantification says that determiner quantifiers (such as every) take an NP predicate and create a generalized quantifier. The goal of this paper is to subject these beliefs to crosslinguistic scrutiny. I begin by showing that in St'á'imcets (Lillooet Salish), quantifiers always require sisters of argumental type, and the creation of a generalized quantifier from an NP predicate always proceeds in two steps rather than one. I then explicitly adopt the strong null hypothesis that the denotations of (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  26. Ezra Keshet (2010). Situation Economy. Natural Language Semantics 18 (4):385-434.score: 30.0
    Researchers often assume that possible worlds and times are represented in the syntax of natural languages. However, it has been noted that such a system can overgenerate. This paper proposes a constraint on systems where worlds and times are represented as situation pronouns. The Intersective Predicate Generalization, based on and extending work by R. Musan, states that two items composed via Predicate Modification, such as a noun and an intersective modifier, must be evaluated in the same world and time. To (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  27. Andrew M. Bailey (2012). No Bare Particulars. Philosophical Studies 158 (1):31-41.score: 24.0
    There are predicates and subjects. It is thus tempting to think that there are properties on the one hand, and things that have them on the other. I have no quarrel with this thought; it is a fine place to begin a theory of properties and property-having. But in this paper, I argue that one such theory—bare particularism—is false. I pose a dilemma. Either bare particulars instantiate the properties of their host substances or they do not. If they (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  28. Tyler Hildebrand (2014). Can Bare Dispositions Explain Categorical Regularities? Philosophical Studies 167 (3):569-584.score: 24.0
    One of the traditional desiderata for a metaphysical theory of laws of nature is that it be able to explain natural regularities. Some philosophers have postulated governing laws to fill this explanatory role. Recently, however, many have attempted to explain natural regularities without appealing to governing laws. Suppose that some fundamental properties are bare dispositions. In virtue of their dispositional nature, these properties must be (or are likely to be) distributed in regular patterns. Thus it would appear that an (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  29. Robert K. Garcia (2013). Bare Particulars and Constituent Ontology. Acta Analytica (2):1-11.score: 24.0
    My general aim in this paper is to shed light on the controversial concept of a bare particular. I do so by arguing that bare particulars are best understood in terms of the individuative work they do within the framework of a realist constituent ontology. I argue that outside such a framework, it is not clear that the notion of a bare particular is either motivated or coherent. This is suggested by reflection on standard objections to (...) particulars. However, within the framework of a realist constituent ontology, bare particulars provide for a coherent theory of individuation—one with a potentially significant theoretical price tag, but one that also has advantages over rival theories. (shrink)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  30. Susanna Siegel (2002). The Role of Perception in Demonstrative Reference. Philosophers' Imprint 2 (1):1-21.score: 24.0
    Siegel defends "Limited Intentionism", a theory of what secures the semantic reference of uses of bare demonstratives ("this", "that" and their plurals). According to Limited Intentionism, demonstrative reference is fixed by perceptually anchored intentions on the part of the speaker.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  31. Martin Schmidt (2008). On Spacetime, Points, and Bare Particulars. Metaphysica 9 (1):69-77.score: 24.0
    In his paper Bare Particulars, T. Sider claims that one of the most plausible candidates for bare particulars are spacetime points. The aim of this paper is to shed light on Sider’s reasoning and its consequences. There are three concepts of spacetime points that allow their identification with bare particulars. One of them, Moderate structural realism, is considered to be the most adequate due its appropriate approach to spacetime metric and moderate view of mereological simples. However, it (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  32. Daniel Giberman (2012). Against Zero-Dimensional Material Objects (and Other Bare Particulars). Philosophical Studies 160 (2):305-321.score: 24.0
    A modus tollens against zero-dimensional material objects is presented from the premises (i) that if there are zero-dimensional material objects then there are bare particulars, and (ii) that there are no bare particulars. The argument for the first premise proceeds by elimination. First, bare particular theory and bundle theory are motivated as the most appealing theories of property exemplification. It is then argued that the bundle theorist’s Ockhamism ought to lead her to reject spatiotemporally located zero-dimensional property (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  33. Byeong-Uk Yi (2005). The Logic and Meaning of Plurals. Part I. Journal of Philosophical Logic 34 (5/6):459-506.score: 24.0
    Contemporary accounts of logic and language cannot give proper treatments of plural constructions of natural languages. They assume that plural constructions are redundant devices used to abbreviate singular constructions. This paper and its sequel, "The logic and meaning of plurals, II", aim to develop an account of logic and language that acknowledges limitations of singular constructions and recognizes plural constructions as their peers. To do so, the papers present natural accounts of the logic and meaning of plural constructions that (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  34. Byeong-uk Yi (2006). The Logic and Meaning of Plurals. Part II. Journal of Philosophical Logic 35 (3):239-288.score: 24.0
    In this sequel to "The logic and meaning of plurals. Part I", I continue to present an account of logic and language that acknowledges limitations of singular constructions of natural languages and recognizes plural constructions as their peers. To this end, I present a non-reductive account of plural constructions that results from the conception of plurals as devices for talking about the many. In this paper, I give an informal semantics of plurals, formulate a formal characterization of (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  35. Christopher Gauker (2014). How Many Bare Demonstratives Are There in English? Linguistics and Philosophy 37 (4):291-314.score: 24.0
    In order to capture our intuitions about the logical consistency of sentences and the logical validity of arguments, a semantics for a natural language has to allow for the fact that different occurrences of a single bare demonstrative, such as “this”, may refer to different objects. But it is not obvious how to formulate a semantic theory in order to achieve this result. This paper first criticizes several proposals: that we should formulate our semantics as a semantics for tokens, (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  36. Mathew Abbott (2012). No Life is Bare, the Ordinary is Exceptional: Giorgio Agamben and the Question of Political Ontology. Parrhesia 14:23-36.score: 24.0
    In this article I develop a theory of political ontology, working to differentiate it from traditional political philosophy and Schmittian political theology. As with political theology, political ontology has its primary grounding not in disinterested contemplation from the standpoint of pure reason, but rather in a confrontation with an existential problem. Yet while for Schmitt this is the problem of how to live and think in obedience to God, the problem for political ontology is the question of being. Thus the (...)
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  37. Richard Brian Davis (2013). Are Bare Particulars Constituents? Acta Analytica 28 (4):395-410.score: 24.0
    In this article I examine an as yet unexplored aspect of J.P. Moreland’s defense of so-called bare particularism — the ontological theory according to which ordinary concrete particulars (e.g., Socrates) contain bare particulars as individuating constituents and property ‘hubs.’ I begin with the observation that if there is a constituency relation obtaining between Socrates and his bare particular, it must be an internal relation, in which case the natures of the relata will necessitate the relation. I then (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  38. Veneeta Dayal (2004). Number Marking and (in)Definiteness in Kind Terms. Linguistics and Philosophy 27 (4):393-450.score: 24.0
    This paper explores the link between number marking and(in)definiteness in nominals and their interpretation. Differencesbetween bare singulars and plurals in languages without determinersare explained by treating bare nominals as kind terms. Differencesarise, it is argued, because singular and plural kinds relatedifferently to their instantiations. In languages with determiners,singular kinds typically occur with the definite determiner, butplural/mass kinds can be bare in some languages and definite inothers. An account of singular kinds in terms of taxonomic readingsis proposed, (...)
    Direct download (9 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  39. Niall Connolly (forthcoming). Yes: Bare Particulars! Philosophical Studies:1-16.score: 24.0
    What is the Bare Particular Theory? Is it committed, like the Bundle Theory, to a constituent ontology: according to which a substance’s qualities—and according to the Bare Particular Theory, its substratum also—are proper parts of the substance? I argue that Bare Particularists need not, should not, and—if a recent objection to ‘the Bare Particular Theory’ (Andrew Bailey’s ‘New Objection’) succeeds—cannot endorse a constituent ontology. There is nothing, I show, in the motivations for Bare Particularism or (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  40. Nathan Wildman (forthcoming). Load Bare-Ing Particulars. Philosophical Studies:1-16.score: 24.0
    Bare particularism is a constituent ontology according to which substances—concrete, particular objects like people, tables, and tomatoes—are complex entities constituted by their properties and their bare particulars. Yet, aside from this description, much about bare particularism is fundamentally unclear. In this paper, I attempt to clarify this muddle by elucidating the key metaphysical commitments underpinning any plausible formulation of the position. So the aim here is primarily catechismal rather than evangelical—I don’t intend to convert anyone to (...) particularism, but, by looking at a series of questions, to instead specify what, if one is a bare particularist, one is committed to. Along the way, I address three major objections: a classic objection about whether bare particulars have properties, a new objection raised by Bailey, and an understanding objection that questions some of the position’s resources. (shrink)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  41. Hanoch Ben-Yami (2013). Higher‐Level Plurals Versus Articulated Reference, and an Elaboration of Salva Veritate. Dialectica 67 (1):81-102.score: 24.0
    In recent literature on plurals the claim has often been made that the move from singular to plural expressions can be iterated, generating what are occasionally called higher-level plurals or superplurals, often correlated with superplural predicates. I argue that the idea that the singular-to-plural move can be iterated is questionable. I then show that the examples and arguments intended to establish that some expressions of natural language are in some sense higher-level plurals fail. Next, I argue that (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  42. Mitchell Travis (forthcoming). We’Re All Infected: Legal Personhood, Bare Life and The Walking Dead. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law - Revue Internationale de Sémiotique Juridique:1-14.score: 24.0
    This article argues that greater theoretical attention should be paid to the figure of the zombie in the fields of law, cultural studies and philosophy. Using The Walking Dead as a point of critical departure concepts of legal personhood are interrogated in relation to permanent vegetative states, bare life and the notion of the third person. Ultimately, the paper recommends a rejection of personhood; instead favouring a legal and philosophical engagement with humanity and embodiment. Personhood, it is suggested, creates (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  43. Enrico Franconi (1993). A Treatment of Plurals and Plural Quantifications Based on a Theory of Collections. Minds and Machines 3 (4):453-474.score: 22.0
    Collective entities and collective relations play an important role in natural language. In order to capture the full meaning of sentences like The Beatles sing Yesterday, a knowledge representation language should be able to express and reason about plural entities — like the Beatles — and their relationships — like sing — with any possible reading (cumulative, distributive or collective).In this paper a way of including collections and collective relations within a concept language, chosen as the formalism for representing the (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  44. Matteo Morganti (2011). Substrata and Properties: From Bare Particulars to Supersubstantivalism? Metaphysica 12 (2):183-195.score: 21.0
  45. M. Dalrymple & S. Mofu (2012). Plural Semantics, Reduplication, and Numeral Modification in Indonesian. Journal of Semantics 29 (2):229-260.score: 20.0
    Patterns of plural marking and numeral modification in Indonesian provide an interesting test bed for theories of the semantics of numeral classifiers and plurality. Cross-linguistically, the presence of numeral classifiers in a language is strongly connected with the absence or optionality of plural marking; this generalization is the basis of Chierchia’s (1998a, 1998b) nominal mapping parameter and also accords with established typological generalizations (Greenberg, 1972), (Aikhenvald, 2000), (Corbett, 2000). In Indonesian, plural marking as both reduplication and classifiers in numeral modification (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  46. Simon Hewitt (2012). Modalising Plurals. Journal of Philosophical Logic 41 (5):853-875.score: 20.0
    There has been very little discussion of the appropriate principles to govern a modal logic of plurals. What debate there has been has accepted a principle I call (Necinc); informally if this is one of those then, necessarily: this is one of those. On this basis Williamson has criticised the Boolosian plural interpretation of monadic second-order logic. I argue against (Necinc), noting that it isn't a theorem of any logic resulting from adding modal axioms to the plural logic PFO+, (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  47. Joost Zwarts (2013). From N to N: The Anatomy of a Construction. [REVIEW] Linguistics and Philosophy 36 (1):65-90.score: 20.0
    This paper develops a detailed and unified analysis of semantics of the from-N-to-N construction, based on a small number of ingredients, none of which are specific to this construction itself, but which are idiomatically packaged in this construction. Letting the construction uniformly apply to the product of the two nouns not only captures their strong relation, but it also obviates a role for a ‘reduplicative’ mechanism of some sort in this particular construction.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  48. Emmanuel Alloa (2005). Bare Exteriority. Philosophy of the Image and the Image of Philosophy in Martin Heidegger and Maurice Blanchot. Colloquy (10):69-82.score: 18.0
    The article explores the striking coincidences in Heidegger's and Blanchot's account of the image as death mask. The analysis of the respective theories of the image brings forth two radically divergent conceptions of thinking as "laying patent" (Heidegger) and of thinking as "laying bare" (Blanchot).
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  49. Theodore Sider (2006). Bare Particulars. Philosophical Perspectives 20 (1):387–397.score: 18.0
    One often hears a complaint about “bare particulars”. This complaint has bugged me for years. I know it bugs others too, but no one seems to have vented in print, so that is what I propose to do. (I hope also to say a few constructive things along the way.) The complaint is aimed at the substratum theory, which says that particulars are, in a certain sense, separate from their universals. If universals and particulars are separate, connected to each (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  50. Friederike Moltmann (2013). Tropes, Bare Demonstratives, and Apparent Statements of Identity. Noûs 47 (2):346-370.score: 18.0
    Philosophers who accept tropes generally agree that tropes act as the objects of reference of nominalizations of adjectives, such as 'Socrates’ wisdom' or 'the beauty of the landscape'. This paper argues that tropes play a further important role in the semantics of natural language, namely in the semantics of bare demonstratives like 'this' and 'that' in what in linguistics is called identificational sentences.
    Direct download (10 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
1 — 50 / 1000