Date: 04 Dec 2010
Relational Order and Onto-Thematic Roles
- Francesco Orilia
- … show all 1 hide
Rent the article at a discountRent now
* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.Get Access
States of affairs involving a non-symmetric relation such as loving are said to have a relational order, something that distinguishes, for instance, Romeo’s loving Juliet from Juliet’s loving Romeo. Relational order can be properly understood by appealing to o-roles, i.e., ontological counterparts of what linguists call thematic roles, e.g., agent, patient, instrument, and the like. This move allows us to meet the appropriate desiderata for a theory of relational order. In contrast, the main theories that try to do without o-roles, proposed by philosophers such as Russell, Hochberg, and Fine, are in trouble with one or another of these desiderata. After discussing some alternatives, it is proposed that o-roles are best viewed as very generic properties characterizable as ways in which objects jointly exemplify a relation. This makes for exemplification relations understood as complex entities having o-roles as building blocks.
Allen, J., 1988, Natural Language Understanding, Benjamin/Cummins, Menlo Park.
Armstrong, D. M., 1986, “In Defense of Structural Universals”, Australasian Journal of. Philosophy, 64, pp. 85–88.CrossRef
Armstrong, D. M., 1997, A World of States of Affairs, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.CrossRef
Bealer, G., 1982, Quality and Concept, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Bealer, G., 1989, “Fine-grained Type-free Intensionality”, in Properties, Types and meaning, I, eds. by Chierchia, G., B. Partee and R. Turner, Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp. 177–230.
Bergmann, G., 1992, New Foundations of Ontology, ed. by W. Heald, University of Wisconsin Press, Madison.
Bigelow, J. and R. Pargetter, 1989, “A Theory of Structural Universals”, Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 67, pp. 1–11 (repr. in Laurence and Macdonald 1998, pp. 219–229).CrossRef
Castañeda, H.N., 1967, “Comments on Davidson’s ‘The logical form of action sentences’”, in N. Rescher, ed., The Logic of Decision and Action, The University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh, pp. 104–112.
Chierchia, G., 1989, “Structured Meanings, Thematic Roles and Control”, in Properties, Types and meaning, I, eds. by Chierchia, G., B. Partee and R. Turner, Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp. 131–166.
Cross, C. B., 2002, “Armstrong and the Problem of Converse Relations”, Erkenntnis, 56, pp. 215–227.
Dorr, C., 2004, “Non-symmetric Relations,” in D. W. Zimmerman, ed., Oxford Studies in Metaphysics, vol. I, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 155–192.
Dowty, D., 1989, “On the Semantic Content of the Notion of ‘Thematic Role’”, in Properties, Types and meaning, I, eds. by Chierchia, G., B. Partee and R. Turner, Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp. 9–130.
Fine, K., 2000, “Neutral Relations”, Philosophical Review, 14, pp. 1–33.
Fine, K., 2007, “Response to Fraser McBride”, dialectica, 61, pp. 57–62.CrossRef
Fitch, F. B., 1952, Symbolic Logic. An Introduction, Ronald Press, New York.
Gaskin, R., 2008, The Unity of the Proposition, Oxford University Press, Oxford.CrossRef
Hochberg, H., 1987, “Russell’s Analysis of Relational Predication and the Asymmetry of the Predication Relation,” Philosophia, 17, pp. 439–459.CrossRef
Laurence, S. and C. Macdonald (eds.), 1998, Contemporary Readings in the Foundations of Metaphysics, Blackwell, Oxford.
Lewis, D., 1986, “Against Structural Universals”, Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 61, pp. 343–77 (repr. in Laurence and MacDonald 1998, pp. 198–218).CrossRef
Maurin, A.-S., 2002, If Tropes, Kluwer, Dordrecht.
McBride, F., 2007, “Neutral Relations Revisited”, dialectica, 61, pp. 25–56.CrossRef
Orilia, F., 2000, “Property Theory and the Revision Theory of Definitions”, Journal of Symbolic Logic, 65, pp. 212–246.CrossRef
Orilia, F., 2003, “Logical Rules, Principles of Reasoning and Russell’s Paradox”, in The Logica Yearbook 2002, ed. by T. Childers and O. Majer, Filosofia—Institute of Philosophy, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, Praga, pp. 179–192.
Orilia, F., 2007, “Bradley’s Regress: Meinong vs. Bergmann”, in Ontology and Analysis, Essays and Recollections about Gustav Bergmann, ed. by L. Addis, G. Jesson, E. Tegtmeier, Ontos Verlag, Frankfurt, pp. 133–163.
Orilia, F., 2008, “The Problem of Order in Relational States of Affairs: A Leibnizian View”, in Fostering the Ontological Turn. Essays on Gustav Bergmann, ed. by G. Bonino and R. Egidi, Ontos Verlag, Frankfurt, pp. 161–186.
Parsons, T., 1990, Events in the Semantics of English: A Study of Subatomic Semantics, MIT Press, Cambridge.
Russell, B., 1903, The Principles of Mathematics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Russell, B., 1984, Theory of Knowledge (ed. by E. R. Eames in collaboration with K. Blackwell), Routledge, London.
Tegtmeier, E., 2004, “The Ontological Problem of Order”, in H. Hochberg and K. Mulligan, eds., Relations and Predicates, Ontos Verlag, Frankfurt, pp. 149–160.
Williamson, T., 1985, “Converse Relations”, Philosophical Review, 94, pp. 249–262.CrossRef
Wetzel, L., 1993, “What are Occurrences of Expressions?”, Journal of Philosophical Logic, 22, pp. 215–219.CrossRef
Wieland, J. W., 2010, “Anti-Positionalism Regress”, Axiomathes (in press).
- Relational Order and Onto-Thematic Roles
Volume 12, Issue 1 , pp 1-18
- Cover Date
- Print ISSN
- Online ISSN
- Springer Netherlands
- Additional Links
- Francesco Orilia (1)
- Author Affiliations
- 1. University of Macerata, Macerata, Italy