Identity Criteria of Common Nouns and dot-types for Copredication

Copredication, especially when combined with quantification, provides interesting examples to support the idea that common nouns have their own identity criteria, as once argued for by Geach and subsequently studied by others. In this paper, revisiting the use of dot-types in modern type theories to...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Stergios Chatzikyriakidis, Zhaohui Luo
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: University of Oslo 2018-12-01
Series:Oslo Studies in Language
Online Access:https://journals.uio.no/osla/article/view/6679
id doaj-6fe549f0fb3640cf8590ea7f336e777d
record_format Article
spelling doaj-6fe549f0fb3640cf8590ea7f336e777d2020-11-25T02:37:30ZengUniversity of OsloOslo Studies in Language1890-96392018-12-0110210.5617/osla.6679Identity Criteria of Common Nouns and dot-types for CopredicationStergios ChatzikyriakidisZhaohui LuoCopredication, especially when combined with quantification, provides interesting examples to support the idea that common nouns have their own identity criteria, as once argued for by Geach and subsequently studied by others. In this paper, revisiting the use of dot-types in modern type theories to model copredication, we show that, when both copredication and quantification are involved, CNs are not just types but should better be interpreted as types associated with their own identity criteria. In other words, formally, CNs are setoids – pairs whose first component is a type that interprets the domain of a CN and whose second component gives the identity criterion for that CN. For copredication with quantification, identity criteria play an essential role in giving a proper treatment of individuation and counting and hence constructing appropriate semantics to facilitate reasoning correctly. With CNs being setoids, the dot-type approach provides an adequate theory for copredication in general and for copredication with quantification in particular. It is further explained that the CNs-as-types approach is still the appropriate characterisation of our approach to interpreting CNs since, in phenomena that do not involve the interaction of copredication with quantification, the identity criteria of related CNs are essentially the same and can be safely ignored.https://journals.uio.no/osla/article/view/6679
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Stergios Chatzikyriakidis
Zhaohui Luo
spellingShingle Stergios Chatzikyriakidis
Zhaohui Luo
Identity Criteria of Common Nouns and dot-types for Copredication
Oslo Studies in Language
author_facet Stergios Chatzikyriakidis
Zhaohui Luo
author_sort Stergios Chatzikyriakidis
title Identity Criteria of Common Nouns and dot-types for Copredication
title_short Identity Criteria of Common Nouns and dot-types for Copredication
title_full Identity Criteria of Common Nouns and dot-types for Copredication
title_fullStr Identity Criteria of Common Nouns and dot-types for Copredication
title_full_unstemmed Identity Criteria of Common Nouns and dot-types for Copredication
title_sort identity criteria of common nouns and dot-types for copredication
publisher University of Oslo
series Oslo Studies in Language
issn 1890-9639
publishDate 2018-12-01
description Copredication, especially when combined with quantification, provides interesting examples to support the idea that common nouns have their own identity criteria, as once argued for by Geach and subsequently studied by others. In this paper, revisiting the use of dot-types in modern type theories to model copredication, we show that, when both copredication and quantification are involved, CNs are not just types but should better be interpreted as types associated with their own identity criteria. In other words, formally, CNs are setoids – pairs whose first component is a type that interprets the domain of a CN and whose second component gives the identity criterion for that CN. For copredication with quantification, identity criteria play an essential role in giving a proper treatment of individuation and counting and hence constructing appropriate semantics to facilitate reasoning correctly. With CNs being setoids, the dot-type approach provides an adequate theory for copredication in general and for copredication with quantification in particular. It is further explained that the CNs-as-types approach is still the appropriate characterisation of our approach to interpreting CNs since, in phenomena that do not involve the interaction of copredication with quantification, the identity criteria of related CNs are essentially the same and can be safely ignored.
url https://journals.uio.no/osla/article/view/6679
work_keys_str_mv AT stergioschatzikyriakidis identitycriteriaofcommonnounsanddottypesforcopredication
AT zhaohuiluo identitycriteriaofcommonnounsanddottypesforcopredication
_version_ 1724795213710360576