Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Counting, measuring, and the fractional cardinalities puzzle

  • Original Research
  • Published:
Linguistics and Philosophy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

According to what I call the Traditional View, there is a fundamental semantic distinction between counting and measuring, which is reflected in two fundamentally different sorts of scales: discrete cardinality scales and dense measurement scales. Opposed to the Traditional View is a thesis known as the Universal Density of Measurement: there is no fundamental semantic distinction between counting and measuring, and all natural language scales are dense. This paper considers a new argument for the latter, based on a puzzle I call the Fractional Cardinalities Puzzle: if answers to ‘how many’-questions always designate cardinalities, and if cardinalities are necessarily discrete, then how can e.g. ‘2.38’ be a correct answer to the question ‘How many ounces of water are in the beaker?’? If cardinality scales are dense, then the answer is obvious: ‘2.38’ designates a fractional cardinality, contra the Traditional View. However, I provide novel evidence showing that ‘many’ is not uniformly associated with the dimension of cardinality across contexts, and so ‘how many’-questions can ask about other kinds of measures, including e.g. volume. By combining independently motivated analyses of cardinal adjectives, measure phrases, complex fractions, and degrees, I develop a semantics intended to defend the Traditional View against purported counterexamples like this and others which have received a fair amount of recent philosophical attention.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Anderson, C., & Morzycki, M. (2015). Degrees as kinds. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 33(3), 791–828.

    Google Scholar 

  • Balcerak-Jackson, B., & Penka, D. (2017). Number word constructions, degree semantics and the metaphysics of degrees. Linguistics and Philosophy, 40(4), 347–372.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bale, A. (2008). A universal scale of comparison. Linguistics and Philosophy, 31(1), 1–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bale, A., & Barner, D. (2009). The interpretation of functional heads: Using comparatives to explore the mass/count distinction. Journal of Semantics, 26, 217–252.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barner, D., & Snedeker, J. (2005). Quantity judgments and individuation: Evidence that mass nouns count. Cognition, 97(1), 41–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barwise, J., & Cooper, R. (1981). Generalized quantifiers and natural language. Linguistics and Philosophy, 4(2), 159–219.

    Google Scholar 

  • Breheny, R. (2008). A new look at the semantics and pragmatics of numerically quantified noun phrases. Journal of Semantics, 25(2), 93–139.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carrara, M., & Lando, G. (2017). Composition and relative counting. Dialectica, 71(4), 489–529.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chierchia, G. (1998). Reference to kinds across languages. Natural Language Semantics, 6, 339–405.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chierchia, G. (2005). Mass nouns, number marking and semantic variation. Talk given at CUNY Linguistics Colloquium, November 10, 2005.

  • Fox, D., & Hackl, M. (2007). The universal density of measurement. Linguistics and Philosophy, 29(5), 537–586.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frege, G. (1884). Grundlagen der Arithmetik. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frege, G. (1903). Grundgesetze der Arithmetik II. Hildesheim: Olms.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grim, S., & Levin, B. (2016). Artifact nouns: Reference and countability. In A. Lamont, & K. Tetzloff (Eds.), Proceedings of the 47th Annual Meeting of North East Linguistic Society (NELS 47) (Vol. 2, pp. 55–64). Amherst, MA: GLSA.

  • Groenendijk, J., & Stokhof, M. (1991). Dynamic predicate logic. Linguistics and Philosophy, 14(1), 39–100.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hackl, M. (2000). Comparative quantifiers. PhD thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

  • Ionin, T., & Matushansky, O. (2006). The composition of complex cardinals. Journal of Semantics, 23(4), 315–360.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ionin, T., Matushansky, O., & Ruys, E. G. (2006). Parts of speech: Toward a unified semantics for partitives. In C. Davis, A. R. Deal, & Y. Zabbal (Eds.), Proceedings of the 36th Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society (NELS 36) (Vol. 1, pp. 357–370). Amherst MA: GLSA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karttunen, L. (1977). Syntax and semantics of questions. Linguistics and Philosophy, 1(1), 3–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy, C. (2015). A “de-fregean” semantics (and neo-gricean pragmatics) for modified and unmodified numerals. Semantics and Pragmatics, 8(10), 1–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy, C., & Stanley, J. (2009). On average. Mind, 118, 586–646.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krifka, M. (1989). Nominal reference, temporal constitution, and quantification in event semantics. In J. von Bentham, R. Bartsch, & P. von Emde Boas (Eds.), Semantics and contextual expressions (pp. 72–115). Dordrecht: Foris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krifka, M. (1990). Boolean and non-Boolean and. In L. Kalman & L. Polos (Eds.), Papers from the Second Symposium on Logic and Language (pp. 161–188). Budapest: Akademmiai Kiado.

    Google Scholar 

  • Landman, F. (2004). Indefinites and the type of sets. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lasersohn, P. (2013). Plurality, conjunction and events. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liebesman, D. (2015). We do not count by identity. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 93(1), 21–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liebesman, D. (2016). Counting as a type of measuring. Philosopher’s Imprint, 16, 1–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Link, G. (1983). The logical analysis of plurals and mass terms: A lattice-theoretic approach. In R. Bäuerle, C. Schwarze, & A. von Stechow (Eds.), Meaning, use, and interpretation of language (pp. 303–323). Berlin: De Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marti, L. (2017). Zero N: Number features and\(\bot \). Ms., Queen Mary University of London.

  • Moltmann, F. (2013). Reference to numbers in natural language. Philosophical Studies, 162, 499–536.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nicolas, D. (2016). Interprétons-nous de la même manière les expressions deux pommes et deux pommes et demie? Travaux de linguistique, 1, 107–119.

    Google Scholar 

  • Partee, B. (1986). Noun phrase interpretation and type-shifting principles. In J. Groenendijk, D. de Jongh, & M. Stokhof (Eds.), Studies in discourse representation theory and the theory of generalized quantifiers (pp. 114–144). Dordrecht: Foris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Partee, B., & Borschev, V. (2012). Sortal, relational, and functional interpretations of nouns and russian container constructions. Journal of Semantics, 29, 445–486.

    Google Scholar 

  • Partee, B., & Rooth, M. (1983). Generalized conjunction and type ambiguity. In R. Bäuerle, C. Schwarze, & A. von Stechow (Eds.), Meaning, use, and interpretation of language (pp. 361–383). Berlin: De Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pelletier, F. J. (1975). Non-singular reference: Some preliminaries. In F. J. Pelletier (Ed.), Mass terms: Some philosophical problems (pp. 1–14). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Portner, P. (2009). Modality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rett, J. (2008). Degree modification in natural language. PhD thesis, Rutgers University.

  • Rett, J. (2014). The polysemy of measurement. Lingua, 143, 242–266.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rothstein, S. (2009). Individuating and measure readings of classifier constructions: Evidence from modern Hebrew. Brill’s Annual of Afroasiatic Languages and Linguistics, 1, 106–145.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rothstein, S. (2016). Counting and measuring: A theoretical and crosslinguistic account. Baltic International Yearbook of Cognition, Logic and Communication, 11. https://doi.org/10.4148/1944-3676.1106.

  • Rothstein, S. (2017). Semantics for counting and measuring. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rullman, H. (1993). Scope ambiguities in how many-questions. Ms., University of Massachusetts.

  • Salmon, N. (1997). Wholes, parts, and numbers. Nous Supplement: Philosophical Perspectives 11: Mind, Causation, and World, 31, 1–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt, V. (2013). Boolean and non-Boolean conjunction. Ms., Universität Wien.

  • Schwarzschild, R. (2002). The grammar of measurement. Semantics and Linguistic Theory, 12, 225–245. https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v12i0.2870.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwarzschild, R. (2005). Measure phrases as modifiers of adjectives. Recherches Linguistiques de Vincennes, 34, 207–228.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scontras, G. (2014). The semantics of measurement. PhD thesis, Harvard University.

  • Scontras, G., Davidson, K., Deal, A. R., & Murray, S. E. (2017). Who has more? The influence of linguistic form on quantity judgments. Proceedings of the Linguistic Society of America, 2. https://doi.org/10.3765/plsa.v2i0.4097.

  • Snyder, E. (2017). Numbers and cardinalities: What’s really wrong with the easy argument? Linguistics and Philosophy, 40(4), 373–400.

    Google Scholar 

  • Snyder, E., & Barlew, J. (2016). The universal measurer. Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung, 20, 658–675. https://ojs.ub.unikonstanz.de/sub/index.php/sub/article/view/288.

  • Snyder, E., & Barlew, J. (2019). How to count \(2\frac{1}{2}\) oranges. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 97, 792–808.

    Google Scholar 

  • Snyder, E., & Shapiro, S. (2016). Frege on the reals. In P. Ebert & M. Rossberg (Eds.), Essays on Frege’s basic laws of arithmetic (pp. 343–383). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Solt, S. (2009). The semantics of adjectives of quantity. PhD thesis, The City University of New York.

  • Solt, S. (2014). Q-adjectives and the semantics of quantity. Journal of Semantics, 32(2), 221–273.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wellwood, A. (2018). Structure preservation in comparatives. Semantics and Linguistic Theory, 28, 78–99. https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v28i0.4413.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wellwood, A. (2019). WHAT more IS. Philosophical Perspectives. Perspectives, 32(1), 454–486.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Munich, Germany

    Eric Snyder

Authors
  1. Eric Snyder
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Eric Snyder.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This publication was funded by LMU Munich’s Institutional Strategy LMUexcellent within the framework of the German Excellence Initiative.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Snyder, E. Counting, measuring, and the fractional cardinalities puzzle. Linguist and Philos 44, 513–550 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-020-09297-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-020-09297-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation