Authors
Xiaomei Yang
Southern Connecticut State University
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 (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1007/s11712-011-9207-4
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

Our Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 50,268
External links

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

Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language.William P. Alston - 1970 - Philosophical Quarterly 20 (79):172-179.
Language and Logic in Ancient China.Chad Hansen - 1983 - University of Michigan Press.
Word & Object.W. V. O. Quine - 1960 - MIT Press.

View all 8 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

How Do We Make Sense of the Thesis “ Bai Ma Fei Ma ”?Xiaomei Yang - 2019 - Dao: A Journal of Comparative Philosophy 18 (2):163-181.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Language and Ontology in Early Chinese Thought.Chris Fraser - 2007 - Philosophy East and West 57 (4):420-456.
How Chinese Thought “Shapes” Western Thought.Chad Hansen - 2001 - The Proceedings of the Twentieth World Congress of Philosophy 2001:25-40.
Tongbian in the Chinese Reading of Dialectical Materialism.Chenshan Tian - 2002 - Philosophy East and West 52 (1):126-144.
Hand or Hammer? On Formal and Natural Languages in Semantics.Martin Stokhof - 2007 - Journal of Indian Philosophy 35 (5-6):597-626.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2011-04-06

Total views
31 ( #310,413 of 2,325,525 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
2 ( #449,490 of 2,325,525 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes