Advertisement

Abstract Objects and the Core-Periphery Distinction in the Ontological and the Conceptual Domain of Natural Language

Chapter
Part of the Synthese Library book series (SYLI, volume 422)

Abstract

This paper elaborates core-periphery distinctions in the ontological and the conceptual domain of natural language. The core-periphery distinction is essential for the pursuit of natural language ontology and has in fact been made implicitly by any philosopher present or past when appealing to natural language for motivating an ontological notion or view. The distinction plays a central role in the main thesis of my 2013 book Abstract Objects and the Semantics of Natural Language, that natural language permits reference to abstract objects only in its periphery, not its core. The paper explores how the core-periphery distinction relevant for ontology appears to be structurally anchored and relates to the more familiar core-periphery distinction that Chomsky drew for syntax.

Keywords

Abstract objects Core-periphery distinction Propositions Properties Numbers Degrees Functional categories 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Part of the material of this paper has been presented in courses on natural language ontology in Duesseldorf, ESSLLI in Sofia (Bulgaria), and Munich in 2018 as well as at NYU (May 2019) and the IHPST, Paris (July 2019). The paper has benefitted greatly from discussions with the audiences as well as from numerous conversations with Kit Fine, exchanges with Noam Chomsky and Donca Steriade, as well as comments by Matti Eklund, Jonathan Schaffer, and an anonymous referee on a previous version of this paper.

References

  1. Cappelen, H. (2018). Fixing language: An essay on conceptual engineering. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Carlson, G. (1977). A unified analysis of the English bare plural. Linguistics and Philosophy, 413–457.Google Scholar
  3. Chalmers, D. (2011). Verbal disputes. Philosophical Review, 120(4), 515–566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on government and binding. The Pisa lectures (Studies in Generative Grammar, no. 9). Dordrecht: Foris Publications.Google Scholar
  5. Chomsky, N. (1986). Knowledge of language. Its nature, origin, and use. Westport/London: Praeger.Google Scholar
  6. Chomsky, N. (1998). New horizons in the study of language and mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Cresswell, M. J. (1986). Why object exists, but events occur. Studia Logica, 45, 371–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Davidson, D. (1967). The logical form of action sentences. In N. Rescher (ed.). The Logic of Decision and Action (pp. 81–95). Pittsburgh: Pittsburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Dummett, M. (1973). Frege: Philosophy of language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Eklund, M. (2015). Intuitions, conceptual engineering, and conceptual fixed points. In C. Daly (Ed.), Palgrave handbook of philosophical methods. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  11. Fine, K. (1991). The study of ontology. Nous, 25(3), 262–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fine, K. (2017). Naïve metaphysics (J. Schaffer, Ed.). Philosophical Issues, 27.Google Scholar
  13. Frege, G. (1884). Die Grundlagen der Arithmetik (Foundations of Arithmetic).Google Scholar
  14. Frege, G. (1918/9). Thoughts. In B. McGuinness (ed.). Collected Papers on Mathematics, Logic, and Philosophy (pp. 351–372). Blackwell, Oxford, 1984.Google Scholar
  15. Hacker, P. M. S. (1982). Events, Ontology, and Grammar. Philosophy 57, 477–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hale, B. (1987). Abstract Objects. Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar
  17. Hodes, H. (1984). The ontological commitment of arithmetics. Journal of Philosophy, 81, 123–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hofweber, T. (2005). Number determiners, numbers, and arithmetics. Philosophical Review, 114(2), 179–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Itô, J., & Mester, A. (1995a). Japanese phonology. In J. Goldsmith (ed.). The handbook of phonological theory (pp. 816–838). Malden: Wiley Blackwell.Google Scholar
  20. Itô, J., & Mester, A. (1995b). The core-periphery structure of the lexicon and constraints on Reranking. In J. Beckman, S. Urbanczyk, & L. Walsh (Eds.), University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics [UMOP] (Vol. 18, pp. 181–209). Amherst: University of Massachusetts/GLSA.Google Scholar
  21. Katz, G. (2003). Event arguments, adverb selection, and the stative adverb gap. In E. Lang (Eds.). Modifying Adjuncts, de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  22. Kim, J. (1976). Events as Property Exemplifications. In M. Brand & D. Walton (Eds.). Action Theory. Reidel: Dordrecht, pp. 310–326.Google Scholar
  23. Maienborn, C. (2007). On Davidsonian and Kimian states. In I. Comorovski / K. von Heusinger (eds.): Existence: Semantics and syntax. Springer, Dordrecht, 107–130.Google Scholar
  24. Moltmann, F. (2004). Properties and kinds of tropes. New linguistic facts and old philosophical insights. Mind, 123(1), 1–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Moltmann, F. (2007). Events, tropes, and truthmaking. Philosophical Studies, 134, 363–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Moltmann, F. (2009). Degree structure as trope structure A trope-based analysis of comparative and positive adjectives. Linguistics and Philosophy, 32, 51–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Moltmann, F. (2013a). Abstract objects and the semantics of natural language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Moltmann, F. (2013b). On the distinction between abstract states, concrete states, and tropes. In A. Mari, C. Beyssade, & F. Del Prete (Eds.), Genericity (pp. 292–311). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Moltmann, F. (2013c). The semantics of existence. Linguistics and Philosophy, 36(1), 31–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Moltmann, F. (2013d). Reference to numbers in natural language. Philosophical Studies, 162(3), 499–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Moltmann, F. (2014). Propositions, attitudinal objects, and the distinction between actions and products. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 43(5–6), 679–701.Google Scholar
  32. Moltmann, F. (2017). Natural language ontology. Oxford Encyclopedia of Linguistics, online.Google Scholar
  33. Moltmann, F. (2018). Truth Predicates, Truth Bearers, and their Variants. In J. Wyatt (ed.). Special issue Truth: Concept meets Property, Synthese, online first.Google Scholar
  34. Moltmann, F. (2020). Existence Predicates. Synthese, 197(1) 311–335Google Scholar
  35. Moltmann, F. (2019). Natural language and its ontology. In A. Goldman & B. McLaughlin (Eds.), Metaphysics and cognitive science (pp. 206–232). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Moltmann, F. (to appear). Variable objects and Truthmaking. In M. Dumitru (Ed.), The philosophy of Kit Fine. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Pustejovsky, J. (1995). The generative lexicon. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  38. Schiffer, S. (1996). Language-created and language-independent entities. Philosophical Topics, 24(1), 149–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Schiffer, S. (2003). The things we mean. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Strawson, P. (1959). Individuals. An essay in descriptive metaphysics. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
  41. van Inwagen, P. (1998). Meta-ontology. Erkenntnis 48, 233–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Vendler, Z. (1967). Linguistics in philosophy. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Williams, D. (1953). On the elements of being. Review of Metaphysics, 7, 3–18.Google Scholar
  44. Wright, C. (1983). Frege’s Conception of Numbers as Objects. Aberdeen UP: Aberdeen.Google Scholar
  45. Yang, C. (2016). The price of linguistic productivity. How children lean to break the rules of language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Yi, B.-Y. (2005). The logic and meaning of plurals. Part I. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 34, 459–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Yi, B.-Y. (2006). The logic and meaning of plurals. Part II. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 35, 239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CNRSParisFrance

Personalised recommendations