Philosophia 5 (4):451-465 (1975)

Abstract
One of the goals of a certain brand of philosopher has been to give an account of language and linguistic phenomena by means of showing how sentences are to be translated into a "logically perspicuous notation" (or an "ideal language"—to use passe terminology). The usual reason given by such philosophers for this activity is that such a notational system will somehow illustrate the "logical form" of these sentences. There are many candidates for this notational system: (almost) ordinary first-order predicate logic (see Quine [1960]), higher-order predicate logic (see Parsons [1968, 1970]), intensional logic (see Montague [1969, 1970a, 1970b, 1971]), and transformational grammar (see Harrnan [1971]), to mention some of the more popular ones. I do not propose to discuss the general question of the correctness of this approach to the philosophy of language, nor do I wish to adjudicate among the notational systems mentioned here. Rather, I want to focus on one problem which must be faced by all such systems—a problem that must be discussed before one decides upon a notational system and tries to demontrate that it in fact can account for all linguistic phenomena. The general problem is to determine what we shall allow as linguistic data; in this paper I shall restrict my attention to this general problem as it appears when we try to account for certain words with non-singular reference, in particular, the words that are classified by the count/ mass and sortal/non-sortal distinctions
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1007/BF02379268
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 72,564
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

Word and Object.Willard Van Orman Quine - 1960 - Cambridge, MA, USA: MIT Press.
Reference and Generality.P. T. Geach - 1962 - Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Universal Grammar.Richard Montague - 1970 - Theoria 36 (3):373--398.
English as a Formal Language.Richard Montague - 1970 - In Bruno Visentini (ed.), Linguaggi nella societa e nella tecnica. Edizioni di Communita. pp. 188-221.

View all 9 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

The Algebra of Events.Emmon Bach - 1986 - Linguistics and Philosophy 9 (1):5--16.
Ambiguity.Adam Sennet - 2011 - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Towards a Common Semantics for English Count and Mass Nouns.Brendan S. Gillon - 1992 - Linguistics and Philosophy 15 (6):597 - 639.

View all 22 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles

The Paradox of Identity.William J. Greenberg - 1996 - Epistemologia 2 (2):207-226.
Close Enough to Reference.David B. Martens - 1993 - Synthese 95 (3):357 - 377.
A Unified Theory of Truth and Reference.Barry Smith & Berit Brogaard - 2000 - Logique Et Analyse 43 (169-170):49–93.
Complex Demonstratives Qua Singular Terms.Eros Corazza - 2003 - Erkenntnis 59 (2):263 - 283.
Thought and Reference.Kent Bach - 1987 - Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2009-01-28

Total views
38 ( #302,936 of 2,533,575 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #390,861 of 2,533,575 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes