Cover not available
Part of
Events, Arguments, and Aspects: Topics in the Semantics of Verbs
Edited by Klaus Robering
[Studies in Language Companion Series 152] 2014
► pp. 115–158

Abstract objects of verbs

Verbs do often take arguments of quite different types. In an orthodox type-theoretic framework this results in an extreme polysemy of many verbs. In this article, it is shown that this unwanted consequence can be avoided when a theory of “abstract objects” is adopted according to which these objects represent non-objectual entities in contexts from which they are excluded by type restrictions. Thus these objects are “abstract” in a functional rather than in an ontological sense: they function as representatives of other entities but they are otherwise quite normal objects. Three examples of such a representation are considered: the denotations of that-phrases are objects representing propositions, generic noun phrases denote objects standing for sorts, and infinitivals are viewed as denoting objects representing attributes, i.e., the “ordinary” meanings of verb phrases.

Published online: 28 March 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.152.03rob
References

Bibliography

Ackermann, Wilhelm
(1950): “Widerspruchsfreier Aufbau der Logik, I.” The Journal of Symbolic Logic 15: 33–57. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1953): “Widerspruchsfreier Aufbau einer typenfreien Logik, II.” Mathematische Zeitschrift 57: 155–166. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1965): “Der Aufbau einer höheren Logik.” Archiv für mathematische Logik und Grundlagenforschung 7: 5–22. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Anderson, Alan Ross & Belnap, Nuel D
(1975): The Logic of Relevance and Necessity . Vol. 1. Princeton and London: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Anderson, C. Anthony
(1984): “General intensional logic.” In: Dov Gabbay & Franz Guenthner (eds.) The Handbook of Philosophical Logic , Vol. II, Dordrecht: Reidel. 355–385. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bacon, John
(1973): “Do generic description denote?” Mind 82: 331–347. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bealer, George
(1982): Quality and Concept . Oxford: Clarendon Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boolos, George
(1998a): “The iterative conception of set.” In: Boolos(1998b: p 13–29). Originally published in The Journal of Philosophy 68 (1971). 215–232.Google Scholar
(1998b): Logic, Logic, and Logic . Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Cantor, Georg
(1890/91): “Über eine elementare Frage der Mannigfaltigkeitslehre.” Jahresbericht der Deutschen Mathematiker-Vereinigung 1: 75–78. Reprinted: Cantor (1932: p. 278–281).Google Scholar
(1895): “Beiträge zur Begründung der transfiniten Mengenlehre.” Mathematische Annalen 46: 481–512. Reprinted (together with the continuation of this article): Cantor (1932: p. 282–351). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1932): Abhandlungen mathematischen und philosophischen Inhalts . Edited by Ernst Zermelo. Berlin: Springer. Reprinted: Hildesheim and New York: Olms 1966.Google Scholar
Carpenter, Robert L
(1997): Type-logical Semantics . Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chierchia, Gennaro
(1982): “Nominalization and Montague grammar: A semantics without types for natural languages.” Linguistics and Philosophy 5: 303–354. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1988): Topics in the Syntax and Semantics of Infinitives and Gerunds . New York and London: Garland.Google Scholar
Cocchiarella, Nino B
(1987): Logical Studies in Early Analytic Philosophy . Columbus OH: Ohio State University Press.Google Scholar
Cochiarella, Nino B
(1986): Logical Investigations of Predication Theory and the Problem of Universals . Naples: Bibliopolis.Google Scholar
Cooper, William S
(1978): Foundations of Logico-Linguistics . Dordrecht: Reidel. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Curry, Haskel B
(1942): “The inconsistency of certain formal logics.” The Journal of Symbolic Logic 7: 115–117. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Curry, Haskell B
(1963): Foundations of Mathematical Logic . New York etc.: MacGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Curry, Haskell B. & Feys, Robert
(1958): Combinatory Logic . Vol. 1. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Dummett, Michael
(1973): Frege. Philosophy of Language . London: Duckworth. 2nd edition 1981.Google Scholar
Feferman, Solomon
(1975): “Non-extensional type-free theories of partial operaions and classifications, I.” In: Justus Diller & Gert Heinz Müller (eds.) |= ISILC Proof Theory Symposium. Dedicated to Kurt Schütte on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday ,Berlin, Heidelberg, and New York: Springer. 73–118.Google Scholar
(1984): “Toward useful type-free theories, I.” In: Robert L. Martin (ed.) Recent Essays on Truth and the Liar Paradox , Oxford:Clarendon Press.237–306. Also in: The Journal of Symbolic Logic . 49 (1984). 75–111.Google Scholar
Fine, Kit
(2002): The Limits of Abstraction . Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Frege, Gottlob
(1884): Die Grundlagen der Arithmetik. Eine logisch-mathematische Untersuchung über den Begriff der Zahl . Breslau: Koebner. Centenary edition. Hamburg: Meiner1986.Google Scholar
(1892): “Über Begriff und Gegenstand.” Vierteljahresschrift für wissenschaftliche Philosophie 16: 192–205. Reprinted: Frege (1990: p. 167–178).Google Scholar
(1893/1903): Grundgesetze der Arithmetik . 2 Vols. Jena: Pohle. Reprinted: Hildesheim and New York: Olms 1966.Google Scholar
(1918/19): “Der Gedanke.” Beiträge zur Philosophie des deutschen Idealismus 1: 58–77. Reprinted: Frege (1990: p. 342–362). English translation: “The thought: A Logical Inquiry”. Mind 65 (1956). 289–311.Google Scholar
(1990): Kleine Schriften . Edited by Ignacio Angelelli. Hildesheim and New York: Olms, 2nd edition. 1st edition 1967.Google Scholar
Geach, Peter
(1950): “Subject and predicate.” Mind 59: 127–162.Google Scholar
(1962): Reference and Generality. An Examination of Some Medieval and Modern Theories . Ithaca NY and London: Cornell University Press. 3rd edition 1980.Google Scholar
(1967): “Identity.” Review of Metaphysics 21. Reprinted: Geach, Thomas: Logic Matters. Oxford: Blackwell 1972. 2nd, corrected edition 1981. p. 238–247.Google Scholar
Groenendijk, Jeroen & Stokhof, Martin
(1984): “Studies in the semantics of questions and the pragmatics of answers.” Ph.D. thesis, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Grover, Dorothy L., Camp, Joseph L. & Belnap, Nuel D
(1974): “A prosentential theory of truth.” Philosophical Studies 27: 73–125. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gupta, Anil
(1980): The Logic of Common Nouns. An Investigation in Quantified Modal Logic . New Haven and London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Hale, Bob
(2001): “Singular terms (1), (2).” In: Hale & Wright (2001: p. 31–47 (1), 48–71 (2)).
Hale, Bob & Wright, Crispin
(eds.) (2001): The Reason’s Proper Study. Essays towards a Neo-Fregean Philosophy of Mathematics . Oxford: Oxford University Press.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hindley, J. Roger & Seldin, Jonathan P
(1986): Introduction to Combinators and λ-Calculus . Cambridge GB: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hiż, Henry
(1984): “Frege, Leśniewski and information semantics on the resolution of the antinomies.” Synthese 60 : 51–72. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Keenan, Edward L. & Faltz, Leonard M
(1985): Boolean Semantics for Natural Language . Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Lewis, David
(1986): On the Plurality of Worlds . Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Martin-Löf, Per
(1984): Intuitionistic Type Theory . Naples: Bibliopolis.Google Scholar
Meschkowski, Herbert
(1967): Probleme des Unendlichen. Werk und Leben Georg Cantors . Braunschweig: Vieweg. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Montague, Richard
(1970): “Universal grammar.” Theoria 36: 373–398. Reprinted: Thomason (1974: p. 222–246). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1973): “The proper treatment of quantification in ordinary English.” In: Jaakko Hintikka, Julius Moravcsik & Patrick Suppes (eds.) Approaches to Natural Language : Proceedings of the 1970 Stanford Workshop ,Dordrecht: Reidel. 221–242. Reprinted: Thomason (1974: pp. 247–270). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Morrill, Glyn V
(1994): Type Logical Grammar. Categorial Logic of Signs . Dordrecht, Boston, London: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Myhill, John
(1963): “An alternative to the method of extension and intension.” In: Paul Arthur Schilpp (ed.) The Philosophy of Rudolf Carnap , La Salle IL: Open Court. 299–310.Google Scholar
Nelson, David
(1949): “Constructible falsity.” The Journal of Symbolic Logic 14: 16–26. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pierce, Benjamin
(2002): Types and Programming Languages . Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Quine, Willard Van Orman
(1940): Mathematical Logic . Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press. Revised Edition 1951.Google Scholar
(1953): “New foundations for mathematical logic.” In: From a Logical Point of View. 9 Logico-Philosophical Essays . Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press. 80–101.Google Scholar
Ramsey, Frank P
(1927): “Facts and propositions.” Aristotelian Society Supplementary VolumeVII: 153–170. Reprinted: Ramsey, Frank P.: Foundations. Essays in Philosophy, Logic, Mathematics and Economics. Ed. by D. H.Mellor. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul 1978. 40–57.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Robering, Klaus
(1994): “Stufen, Typen, Sorten.” In: Klaus Robering (ed.) Sorten, Typen, Typenfreiheit. Probleme der Klassifikation semantischer Einheiten ,Berlin: Technische Universität Berlin. 5–55.Google Scholar
(2000): “Categorial graph grammar: A direct approach to functor-argumentor structure.” Theoretical Linguistics 26: 31–73. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2008): “Ackermann’s class theory.” In: Klaus Robering (ed.) New Approaches to Classes and Concepts , London: College Publications. 23–56.Google Scholar
Scott, Dana
(1971): “The lattice of flow diagrams.” In: Erwin Engeler (ed.) Symposium on Semantics of Algorithmic Languages , Berlin, Heidelberg, New York: Springer. 311–372. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Słupecki, Jerzy
(1971): “A generalization of modal logic.” Studia Logica 28: 7–13. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Specker, Ernst P
(1953): “The axiom of choice in Quine’s ‘New Foundations for Mathematical Logic’.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 39. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thomason, Richmond
(ed.) (1974): Formal Philosophy. Selected Papers by Richard Montague . New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
(1989): “Motivating ramified type theory.” In: Gennaro Chierchia, Barbara H. Partee & Raymond Turner (eds.) Properties, Types and Meaning. Volume I Foundational Issues , Dordrecht: Reidel. 47–62. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Villadsen, Jørgen
(2010): ∇. A Linguistic System Based on Type Theory . Berlin: LIT Verlag.Google Scholar
Wansing, Heinrich
(1993): The Logic of Information Structures . Berlin and New York: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Whitehead, Alfred N. & Russell, Bertrand
(1910–1913): Principia Mathematica . 3 Vols. Cambridge GB: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar