Advertisement

Philosophical Studies

, Volume 168, Issue 1, pp 261–282 | Cite as

Number words and reference to numbers

  • Katharina Felka
Article

Abstract

A realist view of numbers often rests on the following thesis: statements like ‘The number of moons of Jupiter is four’ are identity statements in which the copula is flanked by singular terms whose semantic function consists in referring to a number (henceforth: Identity). On the basis of Identity the realists argue that the assertive use of such statements commits us to numbers. Recently, some anti-realists have disputed this argument. According to them, Identity is false, and, thus, we may deny that the relevant statements commit us to numbers. The present paper argues that the correct linguistic analysis of the relevant number statements supports the anti-realist view that Identity is false. However, as will further be shown, pace the anti-realist, this analysis does not establish that such statements do not commit us to numbers after all.

Keywords

Ontological commitment Abstract objects Number words Frege Specificational sentences Nominalizations 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Thanks to an anonymous referee of this journal, Daniel Dohrn, Peter Fritz, Thomas Hofweber, Stephan Krämer, Benjamin Schnieder, Robert Schwartzkopff, and, most of all, Alexander Steinberg for helpful discussions and comments. Thanks also to audiences in Hamburg, Turin, Alghero, Berlin, and Cambridge (especially to Michael Potter who was my commentator) where I presented my paper.

References

  1. Akmajian, A. (1979). Aspects of the grammar of focus in English. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
  2. Aloni, M. (2008). Concealed questions under cover. Grazer Philosophische Studien, 77, 191–216.Google Scholar
  3. Baker, C. (1968). Indirect questions in English. Ph.D. thesis, University of Illinois.Google Scholar
  4. Balaguer, M. (1998) Platonism and anti-Platonism in mathematics. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Barwise, J., & Cooper, R. (1981). Generalized quantifiers and natural language. Linguistics and Philosophy, 4, 159–219.Google Scholar
  6. Bošković, Z. (1997). Pseudoclefts. Studia Linguistica, 51, 235–277.Google Scholar
  7. Brogaard, B. (2007). Number words and ontological commitment. Philosophical Quarterly, 57, 1–20.Google Scholar
  8. den Dikken, M. (2001). Specificational copular clauses and pseudoclefts: A case study. http://www.gc.cuny.edu/CUNY_GC/media/CUNY-Graduate-Center/PDF/Programs/Linguistics/Dikken/pseudocl-001.pdf.
  9. den Dikken, M., Meinunger, A., & Wilder, C. (2000). Pseudoclefts and ellipsis. Studia Linguistica, 54, 41–89.Google Scholar
  10. Fara, D. G. (2001). Descriptions as predicates. Philosophical Studies, 102, 1–42.Google Scholar
  11. Field, H. (1984). Platonism for cheap? Crispin Wright on Frege’s context principle. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 14, 637–662.Google Scholar
  12. Frege, G. (1974). The foundations of arithmetic: A logico-mathematical enquiry into the concept of number. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  13. Grimshaw, J. (1979). Complement selection and the lexicon. Linguistic Inquiry, 10, 279–326.Google Scholar
  14. Groenendijk, J., & Stokhof, M. (1994). Questions. In J. Van Benthem & A. ter Meulen (Eds.), Handbook of logic and language. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  15. Haegemann, L. (1994). Government and binding theory (2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  16. Heim, I. (1982). The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases. Ph.D. thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
  17. Heller, D. (2005). Identity and information: Semantic and pragmatic aspects of specificational sentences. Ph.D. thesis, Rutgers University.Google Scholar
  18. Heycock, C. (1994). The internal structure of small clauses. Proceedings of NELS 25.Google Scholar
  19. Heycock, C., & Kroch, A. (1999). Pseudocleft connectedness: Implications for the LF interface level. Linguistic Inquiry, 30, 365–397.Google Scholar
  20. Higgins, F. R. (1973). The pseudo-cleft construction in English. Ph.D. thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
  21. Hofweber, T. (2005). Number determiners, numbers, and arithmetic. Philosophical Review, 114, 179–225.Google Scholar
  22. Hofweber, T. (2007). Innocent statements and their metaphysically loaded counterparts. Philosophers’ Imprint, 7, 1–33.Google Scholar
  23. Jacobson, P. (1994). Binding connectivity in copular sentences. In Proceedings of semantics and linguistic theory.Google Scholar
  24. Mikkelsen, L. (2005). Copular clauses: Specification, predication and equation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mikkelsen, L. (2011). Copular clauses. In C. Maienborn, P. Portner, & K. von Heusinger (Eds.), Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning (Vol. 2). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  26. Mikkelsen, L. (2012). Specification under discussion. In Proceedings of BLS 34, parasession on information structure.Google Scholar
  27. Moltmann, F. (2013). Reference to numbers in natural language. Philosophical Studies, 162, 499–536.Google Scholar
  28. Rochemont, M., & Culicover, P. (1990). English focus constructions and the theory of grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Romero, M. (2005). Concealed questions and specificational subjects. Linguistics and Philosophy, 28, 687–737.Google Scholar
  30. Ross, J. (1972). Act. In D. Davidson & G. Harman (Eds.), Semantics of natural language. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
  31. Russell, B. (1905). On denoting. Mind, 14, 479–493.Google Scholar
  32. Schlenker, P. (2003). Clausal equations: A note on the connectivity problem. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 21, 157–214.Google Scholar
  33. Schwartzkopff, R. (ms.). What type of sentence is ‘The number of planets is eight’? Manuscript.Google Scholar
  34. Sharvit, Y. (1999). Connectivity in specificational sentences. Natural Language Semantics, 7, 299–339.Google Scholar
  35. Yablo, S. (1996). How in the world? In C. Hill (Ed.), Metaphysics. Fayetteville, AR: University of Arkansas Press.Google Scholar
  36. Yablo, S. (2001). Go figure: A path through fictionalism. Midwest Studies in Philosophy, 25, 72–102.Google Scholar
  37. Yoo, E. (2003). Specificational pseudoclefts in English. In Proceedings of the HPSG03 conference.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Nominalizations Research Group, Department of PhilosophyUniversity of HamburgHamburgGermany

Personalised recommendations