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

1000+ found
Sort by:
  1. 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  
  2. 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  
  3. Eytan Zweig (2009). Number-Neutral Bare Plurals and the Multiplicity Implicature. Linguistics and Philosophy 32 (4):353-407.score: 24.0
    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 of (...)
    Direct download (9 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  4. 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  
  5. 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  
  6. 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  
  7. Nicholas Asher, Ambiguity and Anaphora with Plurals in Discourse.score: 18.0
    We provide examples of plurals related to ambiguity and anaphora that pose problems or are counterexamples for current approaches to plurals. We then propose a dynamic semantics based on an extension of dynamic predicate logic (DPL+) to handle these examples. On our theory, different readings of sentences or discourses containing plurals don’t arise from a postulated ambiguity of plural terms or predicates applying to plural DPs, but follow rather from different types of dynamic transitions that manipulate inputs (...)
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  8. Alex Oliver & Timothy Smiley (2006). A Modest Logic of Plurals. Journal of Philosophical Logic 35 (3):317 - 348.score: 18.0
    We present a plural logic that is as expressively strong as it can be without sacrificing axiomatisability, axiomatise it, and use it to chart the expressive limits set by axiomatisability. To the standard apparatus of quantification using singular variables our object-language adds plural variables, a predicate expressing inclusion (is/are/is one of/are among), and a plural definite description operator. Axiomatisability demands that plural variables only occur free, but they have a surprisingly important role. Plural description is not eliminable in favour of (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  9. K. Hossack (2000). Plurals and Complexes. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 51 (3):411-443.score: 18.0
    Atomism denies that complexes exist. Common-sense metaphysics may posit masses, composite individuals and sets, but atomism says there are only simples. In a singularist logic, it is difficult to make a plausible case for atomism. But we should accept plural logic, and then atomism can paraphrase away apparent reference to complexes. The paraphrases require unfamiliar plural universals, but these are of independent interest; for example, we can identify numbers and sets with plural universals. The atomist paraphrases would fail if (...) presuppose complexes: but an Appendix shows that reference to complexes is not required in the semantics of plurals. (shrink)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  10. Philippe Schlenker, Properties, Plurals and Paradox.score: 18.0
    It has been argued that an objectual semantics for plurals falls victim to Russell’s paradox, and that a nominalistic semantics should therefore be preferred (Boolos 1984); similar considerations have sometimes been extended to other types of abstract reference, in particular to property talk. We suggest that this line of argument is mistaken: deeply entrenched features of ordinary language guarantee that property and plural talk do give rise to paradoxes. In the case of properties, the grammar of English is untyped, (...)
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  11. Ariel Cohen & Nomi Erteschik-Shir (2002). Topic, Focus, and the Interpretation of Bare Plurals. Natural Language Semantics 10 (2):125-165.score: 18.0
    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 into the predicate.The type of (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  12. A. Cohen (2005). More Than Bare Existence: An Implicature of Existential Bare Plurals. Journal of Semantics 22 (4):389-400.score: 18.0
    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 addition to the (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  13. Barry Schein (1993). Plurals and Events. MIT Press.score: 18.0
    Barry Schein proposes combining a second-order treatment of plurals with DonaldDavidson's suggestion that there are positions for reference to events in ordinary predicates inorder to account for several of the more puzzling features of ...
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  14. David Nicolas, Can Mereological Sums Serve as the Semantic Values of Plurals?score: 18.0
    Abstract: Friends of plural logic—like Oliver & Smiley (2001), Rayo (2002), Yi (2005), and McKay (2006)—have argued that a semantics of plurals based on mereological sums would be too weak, and they have adduced several examples in favor of their claim. However, they have not considered various possible counter-arguments. So how convincing are their own arguments? We show that several of them are easily answered, while some others are more problematic. Overall, the case against mereological singularism—the idea that mereological (...)
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  15. Agustín Rayo (2007). Plurals. Philosophy Compass 2 (3):411–427.score: 16.0
    Forthcoming in Philosophical Compass. I explain why plural quantifiers and predicates have been thought to be philosophically significant.
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  16. Nino B. Cocchiarella (2005). Denoting Concepts, Reference, and the Logic of Names, Classes as Many, Groups, and Plurals? Linguistics and Philosophy 28 (2):135 - 179.score: 16.0
    Bertrand Russell introduced several novel ideas in his 1903 Principles of Mathematics that he later gave up and never went back to in his subsequent work. Two of these are the related notions of denoting concepts and classes as many. In this paper we reconstruct each of these notions in the framework of conceptual realism and connect them through a logic of names that encompasses both proper and common names, and among the latter, complex as well as simple common names. (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  17. Kevin C. Klement, Early Russell on Types and Plurals.score: 16.0
    In 1903, in The Principles of Mathematics (PoM), Russell endorsed an account of classes whereupon a class fundamentally is to be considered many things, and not one, and used this thesis to explicate his first version of a theory of types, adding that it formed the logical justification for the grammatical distinction between singular and plural. The view, however, was short-lived; rejected before PoM even appeared in print. However, aside from mentions of a few misgivings, there is little evidence about (...)
    Translate to English
    | Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  18. Roger Schwarzschild (1993). Plurals, Presuppositions and the Sources of Distributivity. Natural Language Semantics 2 (3):201-248.score: 16.0
    This paper begins with a discussion ofcumulativity (e.g., ‘P(a) & P(b) implies P(a+b)’), formalized using a verb phrase operator. Next, the meanings of distributivity markers such aseach and non-distributivity indicators such astogether are considered. An existing analysis ofeach in terms of quantification over parts of a plurality is adopted. However,together is problematic, for it involves a cancellation or negation of the quantification associated witheach. (The four boys together owned exactly three cars could not be true if each of the boys (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  19. Peter Lasersohn (2011). Mass Nouns and Plurals. In Claudia Maienborn, Klaus von Heusinger & Paul Portner (eds.), Semantics: An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning. De Gruyter Mouton. 2.score: 15.0
  20. Friederike Moltmann (forthcoming). Plural Reference and Reference to a Plurality. Linguistic Facts and Semantic Analyses. In Massimiliano Carrara, Alexandra Arapinis & Friederike Moltmann (eds.), Unity and Plurality. Logic, Philosophy, and Semantics. Oxford University Press.score: 15.0
    This paper defends 'plural reference', the view that definite plurals refer to several individuals at once, and it explores how the view can account for a range of phenomena that have been discussed in the linguistic literature.
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  21. Alex Oliver & Timothy Smiley (2001). Strategies for a Logic of Plurals. Philosophical Quarterly 51 (204):289-306.score: 15.0
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  22. Gabriel Uzquiano (2004). Plurals and Simples. The Monist 87 (3):429-451.score: 15.0
  23. Agustin Rayo (2006). Beyond Plurals. In Agustín Rayo & Gabriel Uzquiano (eds.), Absolute Generality. Oxford University Press. 220--54.score: 15.0
    I have two main objectives. The first is to get a better understanding of what is at issue between friends and foes of higher-order quantification, and of what it would mean to extend a Boolos-style treatment of second-order quantification to third- and higherorder quantification. The second objective is to argue that in the presence of absolutely general quantification, proper semantic theorizing is essentially unstable: it is impossible to provide a suitably general semantics for a given language in a language of (...)
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  24. Kai von Fintel (1997). Bare Plurals, Bare Conditionals, and Only. Journal of Semantics 14 (1):1-56.score: 15.0
    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  
  25. C. Brisson (2003). Plurals, All, and the Nonuniformity of Collective Predication. Linguistics and Philosophy 26 (2):129-184.score: 15.0
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  26. AlexOliver & TimothySmiley (2001). Strategies for a Logic of Plurals. Philosophical Quarterly 51 (204):289–306.score: 15.0
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  27. Eytan Zweig (2008). Dependent Plurals and Plural Meaning. Dissertation, New York Universityscore: 15.0
    While writing this thesis, there were many things I wanted to get right. I wanted to get the data right. I wanted to get my analysis of the data right. I certainly wanted to get all my citations right, which can get pretty tricky when one is trying to finish a chapter at 2am. But if an error did creep in somewhere in the body of the thesis, that is not a disaster. Sooner or later, I will get a chance (...)
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  28. Byeong-Uk Yi (forthcoming). The Language and Logic of Plurals. Journal of Philosophical Logic.score: 15.0
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  29. Peter Lasersohn (1997). Bare Plurals and Donkey Anaphora. Natural Language Semantics 5 (1):79-86.score: 15.0
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  30. Thomas McKay, Chapter 1 a Formal Language with Non-Distributive Plurals: Preliminary Considerations.score: 15.0
    (1) Arnie, Bob and Carlos are shipmates.1 This is something true of the three of them together. We cannot say Arnie is a shipmate except perhaps as elliptical for something that connects Arnie to others. (Arnie is a..
    Translate to English
    |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  31. Renita Silva, Sabrina Gerth & Harald Clahsen (2013). Morphological Constraints in Children's Spoken Language Comprehension: A Visual World Study of Plurals Inside Compounds in English. Cognition 129 (2):457-469.score: 15.0
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  32. Harald Clahsen, Monika Rothweiler, Andreas Woest & Gary F. Marcus (1992). Regular and Irregular Inflection in the Acquisition of German Noun Plurals. Cognition 45 (3):225-255.score: 15.0
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  33. Brendan S. Gillon (1990). Bare Plurals as Plural Indefinite Noun Phrases. In. In Kyburg Henry E., Loui Ronald P. & Carlson Greg N. (eds.), Knowledge Representation and Defeasible Reasoning. Kluwer. 119--166.score: 15.0
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  34. Richard Kayne, Some Silent First Person Plurals.score: 15.0
    (April 2007 - to appear in the proceedings of GLOW 2006).
    No categories
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  35. Godehard Link (1983). The Logical Analysis of Plurals and Mass Terms: A Lattice-Theoretic Approach. In P. Portner & B. H. Partee (eds.), Formal Semantics - the Essential Readings. Blackwell. 127--147.score: 15.0
    No categories
    Translate to English
    |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  36. Ivan Lowe (1974). An Algebraic Theory of English Pronominal Reference (Part II): Plurals From Singulars. Semiotica 10 (1):43-74.score: 15.0
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  37. Danielle E. Matthews & Anna L. Theakston (2006). Errors of Omission in English‐Speaking Children's Production of Plurals and the Past Tense: The Effects of Frequency, Phonology, and Competition. Cognitive Science 30 (6):1027-1052.score: 15.0
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  38. Barry Schein (2006). Plurals. In Ernest Lepore & Barry Smith (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Language. Oxford University Press. 716--767.score: 15.0
    No categories
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  39. Lenhart K. Schubert & Francis Jeffry Pelletier (1987). Problems in the Representation of the Logical Form of Generics, Plurals, and Mass Nouns. In Ernest Lepore (ed.), New Directions in Semantics. Academic Press.score: 15.0
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  40. Ratnamuthu Sugathan & Kamal Kishor Mishra (eds.) (2008). Random Plurals: Fragments on Philosophy, Aesthetics, and History. Anjalianu Publishers.score: 15.0
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  41. Hugo Van Der Molen & John Morton (1979). Remembering Plurals: Unit of Coding and Form of Coding During Serial Recall. Cognition 7 (1):35-47.score: 15.0
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  42. Miyuki Yamashina & Christopher Tancredi (2005). Degenerate Plurals. In. In Emar Maier, Corien Bary & Janneke Huitink (eds.), Proceedings of Sub9. 522--537.score: 15.0
    No categories
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  43. David Nicolas (2008). Mass Nouns and Plural Logic. Linguistics and Philosophy 31 (2):211 - 244.score: 14.0
    A dilemma put forward by Schein (1993, Plurals and events. Cambridge: MIT Press) and Rayo (2002, Nous, 36, 436-464) suggests that, in order to characterize the semantics of plurals, we should not use predicate logic, but plural logic, a formal language whose terms may refer to several things at once. We show that a similar dilemma applies to mass nouns. If we use predicate logic and sets when characterizing their semantics, we arrive at a Russellian paradox. And if (...)
    Direct download (11 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  44. Massimiliano Carrara, Alessandra Arapinis & Friederike Moltmann (eds.) (forthcoming). Unity and Plurality. Philosophy, Logic, and Semantics. Oxford University Press.score: 12.0
    This volume brings together new work on the logic and ontology of plurality and a range of recent articles exploring novel applications to natural language semantics. The contributions in this volume in particular investigate and extend new perspectives presented by plural logic and non-standard mereology and explore their applications to a range of natural language phenomena. Contributions by P. Aquaviva, A. Arapinis, M. Carrara, P. McKay, F. Moltmann, O. Linnebo, A. Oliver and T. Smiley, T. Scaltsas, P. Simons, and B.-Y. (...)
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  45. Adrian Brasoveanu (2008). Donkey Pluralities: Plural Information States Versus Non-Atomic Individuals. [REVIEW] Linguistics and Philosophy 31 (2):129 - 209.score: 12.0
    The paper argues that two distinct and independent notions of plurality are involved in natural language anaphora and quantification: plural reference (the usual non-atomic individuals) and plural discourse reference, i.e., reference to a quantificational dependency between sets of objects (e.g., atomic/non-atomic individuals) that is established and subsequently elaborated upon in discourse. Following van den Berg (PhD dissertation, University of Amsterdam, 1996), plural discourse reference is modeled as plural information states (i.e., as sets of variable assignments) in a new dynamic system (...)
    Direct download (11 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  46. Albert Gatt & Kees van Deemter (2007). Lexical Choice and Conceptual Perspective in the Generation of Plural Referring Expressions. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 16 (4):423-443.score: 11.0
    A fundamental part of the process of referring to an entity is to categorise it (for instance, as the woman). Where multiple categorisations exist, this implicitly involves the adoption of a conceptual perspective. A challenge for the automatic Generation of Referring Expressions is to identify a set of referents coherently, adopting the same conceptual perspective. We describe and evaluate an algorithm to achieve this. The design of the algorithm is motivated by the results of psycholinguistic experiments.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  47. Salvatore Florio (2014). Semantics and the Plural Conception of Reality. Philosophers' Imprint 14 (22):1-20.score: 10.0
    According to the singular conception of reality, there are objects and there are singular properties, i.e. properties that are instantiated by objects separately. It has been argued that semantic considerations about plurals give us reasons to embrace a plural conception of reality. This is the view that, in addition to singular properties, there are plural properties, i.e. properties that are instantiated jointly by many objects. In this article, I propose and defend a novel semantic account of plurals which (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  48. Rafal Urbaniak (2013). Plural Quantifiers: A Modal Interpretation. Synthese:1-22.score: 10.0
    One of the standard views on plural quantification is that its use commits one to the existence of abstract objects–sets. On this view claims like ‘some logicians admire only each other’ involve ineliminable quantification over subsets of a salient domain. The main motivation for this view is that plural quantification has to be given some sort of semantics, and among the two main candidates—substitutional and set-theoretic—only the latter can provide the language of plurals with the desired expressive power (given (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  49. Luisa Martí (2008). The Semantics of Plural Indefinite Noun Phrases in Spanish and Portuguese. Natural Language Semantics 16 (1):1-37.score: 10.0
    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 morphemes), (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
1 — 50 / 1000