Ontological Scope and Linguistic Diversity: Are There Universal Categories?
Ontological Scope and Linguistic Diversity: Are There Universal Categories?
复制标题
本体论范围和语言多样性：是否存在通用类别？
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2015
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
J. Seibt
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
J. Seibt
本文的目的是解决长期以来对本体论范畴的语言“相对性”的担忧，以及由此产生的本体论范围的局限性。鉴于最近关于语言对认知倾向影响的证据，我们是否有经验理由怀疑是否存在跨语言具有普遍范围的本体论类别？我认为情况确实如此，至少如果我们在分析本体论中保留标准的“推理”方法，即，如果我们相对于 L 中的某些实质性推论来评估 L 句子的本体论解释。语言类型学研究表明，为印欧语言领域假设的实体类型无法捕获（更大的一组）非印欧语言的本体论承诺。因此，本体论范畴论似乎有三种选择。第一个选择是放弃本体论范畴论的标准“推理”方法。或者，如果我们坚持推理方法，我们将面临以下选择。任何一种本体论都必须放弃为任何语言提供通用领域描述的雄心，而满足于重建一组自然语言的本体论承诺的更温和的项目。否则，分析本体论应该转向语言类型学，以适应自然语言中嵌入的推理结构的多样性。我推荐并探索第三个选项，说明如何构建可跨语言使用的领域理论的策略。第一步，我将展示如何使用对动词和名词语义的语言学研究（对所谓的“Aktionsarten”和“Seinsarten”的研究）来识别时间和空间存在模式的十个基本概念的推理模式。在第二步中，我展示了如何在通用过程理论中对这些推理数据进行本体论解释，通用过程理论是一个基于非特定个体（“动力学”）的本体论框架。
The aim of this paper is to address a longstanding concern about the linguistic ‘relativity’ of ontological categories, and resulting limitations in the scope of ontological theories. Given recent evidence on the influence of language on cognitive dispositions, do we have empirical reasons to doubt that there are ontological categories that have universal scope across languages? I argue that this is the case, at least if we retain the standard ‘inferential’ approach within analytical ontology, i.e., if we evaluate ontological interpretations of L-sentences relative to certain material inferences in L. Research in linguistic typology suggests that types of entities postulated for the domain of Indo-European languages cannot capture the ontological commitments of the (much larger group of) non-Indo-European languages. Ontological category theory thus seems to have three options. The first option is to abandon the standard ‘inferential’ approach to ontological category theory. Alternatively, if we stay with the inferential approach, we face the following choice. Either ontology must let go of its ambitions to provide general domain descriptions for any language and settle for the more modest project of reconstructing the ontological commitments of a group of natural languages. Or else analytical ontologists should turn to linguistic typology in order to accommodate the diversity of inferential structures embedded in natural languages. I recommend and explore this third option, illustrating a strategy for how to construct a domain theory that can be used across languages. In a first step I show how linguistic research on the semantics of verbs and nouns (studies on so-called “Aktionsarten” and “Seinsarten”) can be used to identify the inferential patterns of ten basic concepts of modes of existence in time and space. In a second step I show how these inferential data can be interpreted ontologically within General Process Theory , an ontological framework based on nonparticular individuals (“dynamics”).