Aufgrund von Vorbereitungen auf eine neue Version von KOPS, können am Montag, 6.2. und Dienstag, 7.2. keine Publikationen eingereicht werden. (Due to preparations for a new version of KOPS, no publications can be submitted on Monday, Feb. 6 and Tuesday, Feb. 7.)

Defusing easy arguments for numbers

Cite This

Files in this item

Files Size Format View

There are no files associated with this item.

BALCERAK JACKSON, Brendan, 2013. Defusing easy arguments for numbers. In: Linguistics and Philosophy. 36(6), pp. 447-461. ISSN 0165-0157. eISSN 1573-0549. Available under: doi: 10.1007/s10988-013-9142-4

@article{BalcerakJackson2013Defus-26617, title={Defusing easy arguments for numbers}, year={2013}, doi={10.1007/s10988-013-9142-4}, number={6}, volume={36}, issn={0165-0157}, journal={Linguistics and Philosophy}, pages={447--461}, author={Balcerak Jackson, Brendan} }

<rdf:RDF xmlns:dcterms="" xmlns:dc="" xmlns:rdf="" xmlns:bibo="" xmlns:dspace="" xmlns:foaf="" xmlns:void="" xmlns:xsd="" > <rdf:Description rdf:about=""> <dc:language>eng</dc:language> <dcterms:bibliographicCitation>Linguistics and Philosophy ; 36 (2013), 6. - S. 447-461</dcterms:bibliographicCitation> <dc:creator>Balcerak Jackson, Brendan</dc:creator> <dcterms:title>Defusing easy arguments for numbers</dcterms:title> <dc:date rdf:datatype="">2014-03-04T09:45:45Z</dc:date> <dcterms:available rdf:datatype="">2014-03-04T09:45:45Z</dcterms:available> <dc:rights>terms-of-use</dc:rights> <dcterms:abstract xml:lang="eng">Pairs of sentences like the following pose a problem for ontology: (1) Jupiter has four moons. (2) The number of moons of Jupiter is four. (2) is intuitively a trivial paraphrase of (1). And yet while (1) seems ontologically innocent, (2) appears to imply the existence of numbers. Thomas Hofweber proposes that we can resolve the puzzle by recognizing that sentence (2) is syntactically derived from, and has the same meaning as, sentence (1). Despite appearances, the expressions ‘the number of moons of Jupiter’ and ‘four’ do not function semantically as singular terms in (2). Hofweber’s primary evidence for this proposal concerns differences in the focus-related communicative functions of (1) and (2). In this paper I raise several serious problems for Hofweber’s proposal, and for his attempt to support it by appeal to focus-related phenomena. I conclude by offering independent evidence for an alternative, purely pragmatic resolution of the ontological puzzle.</dcterms:abstract> <foaf:homepage rdf:resource="http://localhost:8080/jspui"/> <bibo:uri rdf:resource=""/> <dcterms:isPartOf rdf:resource=""/> <dcterms:issued>2013</dcterms:issued> <void:sparqlEndpoint rdf:resource="http://localhost/fuseki/dspace/sparql"/> <dcterms:rights rdf:resource=""/> <dc:contributor>Balcerak Jackson, Brendan</dc:contributor> <dspace:isPartOfCollection rdf:resource=""/> </rdf:Description> </rdf:RDF>

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Search KOPS


My Account