Abstract
In linguistics, the dominant approach to the semantics of plurals appeals to mereology. However, this approach has received strong criticisms from philosophical logicians who subscribe to an alternative framework based on plural logic. In the first part of the article, we offer a precise characterization of the mereological approach and the semantic background in which the debate can be meaningfully reconstructed. In the second part, we deal with the criticisms and assess their logical, linguistic, and philosophical significance. We identify four main objections and show how each can be addressed. Finally, we compare the strengths and shortcomings of the mereological approach and plural logic. Our conclusion is that the former remains a viable and well-motivated framework for the analysis of plurals.
Highlights
A prominent tradition in linguistic semantics analyzes plurals by appealing to mereology (e.g. Link [40, 41], Landman [32, 34], Gillon [20], Moltmann [50], Krifka [30], Bale and Barner [2], Chierchia [12], Sutton and Filip [76], and Champollion [9]).1 Paris, FranceS
The mereological approach to plural semantics has received strong criticisms from philosophical logicians who subscribe to an alternative framework based on plural logic (e.g. Boolos [5], Oliver and Smiley [57, 58], Rayo [65, 66], Yi [85], and McKay [47])
In the first part of the article, we offer a precise reconstruction of the mereological approach and its semantic background, in order to enable a more meaningful debate
Summary
A prominent tradition in linguistic semantics analyzes plurals by appealing to mereology (e.g. Link [40, 41], Landman [32, 34], Gillon [20], Moltmann [50], Krifka [30], Bale and Barner [2], Chierchia [12], Sutton and Filip [76], and Champollion [9]).. The mereological approach to plural semantics has received strong criticisms from philosophical logicians who subscribe to an alternative framework based on plural logic (e.g. Boolos [5], Oliver and Smiley [57, 58], Rayo [65, 66], Yi [85], and McKay [47]). The mereological approach is the most popular, and perhaps the most plausible, of these analyses These criticisms have been very influential in philosophy, providing grounds for the acceptance of plural logic in areas such as metaphysics and the philosophy of mathematics. Our aim is to clarify what these responses can be and develop a systematical defense of this approach.2 This will help bridge the gap between the linguistic and philosophical literature. After comparing the mereological approach with plural logic, we conclude that the former remains a viable and well-motivated framework for the analysis of plurals
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have