An Ontology of Words
Words are indispensable linguistic tools for beings like us. However, there is not much philosophical work done about what words really are. In this paper, I develop a new ontology for words. I argue that (a) words are abstract artifacts that are created to fulfill various kinds of purposes, and (b) words are abstract in the sense that they are not located in space but they have a beginning and may have an end in time given that certain conditions are met. What follows from this two-fold argument is that words, from an ontological point of view, are more like musical works, fictional characters or computer programs, than numbers or sets.
I would like to thank an anonymous referee for their detailed comments. For their helpful feedback on earlier drafts, I am grateful to Amie Thomasson, Simon Evnine, Ned Markosian, Dan Korman, Linda Wetzel, Jennifer Wang, Carrie Jenkins, Irem Kurtsal Steen, Harry Platanakis, Ilhan Inan, and Kenneth Westphal. I would also like to thank Georgia Axiotou for her invaluable help and support.
- Arabatzis, T. (2006). Representing electrons. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
- Aranof, M., et al. (1997). An introduction to contemporary linguistics. Bedford/St: Martin’s Press.Google Scholar
- Cameron, R. (2012). How to be a nominalist and a fictional realist. In C. M. Uidhir (Ed.), Art and abstract objects. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Dixon, R. M. W., & Aikhenvald, Y. (2002). Word: A typological framework. In R. M. W. Dixon & Y. Aikhenvald (Eds.), Word: A cross-linguistic typology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Fromkin, V., et al. (2014). An introduction to language. Belmont: Wadsworth Press.Google Scholar
- Hale, B. (1987). Abstract objects. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
- Hilpinen, R. (2011). Artifact. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Winter 2011 Edition. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2011/entries/artifact/.
- Irmak, N. (2012). Software is an abstract artifact. Grazer Philosophische Studien, 86, 55–72.Google Scholar
- Katz, J. J. (2000). Realistic rationalism. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Koslicki, K. (2013). Ontological dependence: An opinionated Survey. In B. Schnieder, M. Hoeltje & A. Steinberg (Eds.), Varieties of dependence: Ontological dependence, grounding, supervenience, response-dependence (Basic Philosophical Concepts) (pp. 31–64). Munich: Philosophia Verlag.Google Scholar
- Lewis, D. (1986). On the plurality of worlds. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
- Lyons, J. (1981). Language and linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Rosen, G. (2001). Abstract objects. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Winter 2017 Edition. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2017/entries/abstract-objects/.
- Tahko, T., & Lowe, J. (2015). Ontological dependence. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Winter 2016 Edition. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2016/entries/dependence-ontological/.
- Thomasson, A. (1999). Fiction and metaphysics. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Uidhir, C. M. (2012). Introduction: Art, metaphysics, and the paradox of standards. In C. M. Uidhir (Ed.), Art and abstract objects. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Wetzel, L. (2014). Types and tokens. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Spring 2014 Edition. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2014/entries/types-tokens/.
- Wollheim, R. (1963). Art and its objects. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar