Relational Order and Onto-Thematic Roles
Abstract States of affairs involving a non-symmetric relation such as loving are said to have a relational order, something that distinguishes, for instance, Romeo’s loving Juliet from Juliet’s loving Romeo. Relational order can be properly understood by appealing to o-roles, i.e., ontological count...
Ausführliche Beschreibung
Gespeichert in:
| Autor*in: |
Orilia, Francesco [verfasserIn] |
|---|
| Format: |
E-Artikel |
|---|---|
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
| Erschienen: |
2010 |
|---|
| Schlagwörter: |
|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
Enthalten in: Metaphysica - Berlin : de Gruyter, 1999, 12(2010), 1 vom: 04. Dez., Seite 1-18 |
|---|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
volume:12 ; year:2010 ; number:1 ; day:04 ; month:12 ; pages:1-18 |
| Links: |
|---|
| DOI / URN: |
10.1007/s12133-010-0072-0 |
|---|
| Katalog-ID: |
SPR024441651 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000caa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | SPR024441651 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20220111114702.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 201006s2010 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1007/s12133-010-0072-0 |2 doi | |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)SPR024441651 | ||
| 035 | |a (SPR)s12133-010-0072-0-e | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 082 | 0 | 4 | |a 100 |q ASE |
| 084 | |a 08.31 |2 bkl | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Orilia, Francesco |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Relational Order and Onto-Thematic Roles |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2010 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a Computermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 520 | |a Abstract States of affairs involving a non-symmetric relation such as loving are said to have a relational order, something that distinguishes, for instance, Romeo’s loving Juliet from Juliet’s loving Romeo. Relational order can be properly understood by appealing to o-roles, i.e., ontological counterparts of what linguists call thematic roles, e.g., agent, patient, instrument, and the like. This move allows us to meet the appropriate desiderata for a theory of relational order. In contrast, the main theories that try to do without o-roles, proposed by philosophers such as Russell, Hochberg, and Fine, are in trouble with one or another of these desiderata. After discussing some alternatives, it is proposed that o-roles are best viewed as very generic properties characterizable as ways in which objects jointly exemplify a relation. This makes for exemplification relations understood as complex entities having o-roles as building blocks. | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a Relational Order |7 (dpeaa)DE-He213 | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Noun Phrase |7 (dpeaa)DE-He213 | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Exemplification Relation |7 (dpeaa)DE-He213 | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Ontological Commitment |7 (dpeaa)DE-He213 | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Factual Order |7 (dpeaa)DE-He213 | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t Metaphysica |d Berlin : de Gruyter, 1999 |g 12(2010), 1 vom: 04. Dez., Seite 1-18 |w (DE-627)550218203 |w (DE-600)2396831-X |x 1874-6373 |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:12 |g year:2010 |g number:1 |g day:04 |g month:12 |g pages:1-18 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12133-010-0072-0 |z lizenzpflichtig |3 Volltext |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a SYSFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_SPRINGER | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_22 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_266 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_702 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2006 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2010 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2020 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2057 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2190 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4012 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4035 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4037 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4112 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4125 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4126 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4242 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4246 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4249 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4251 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4305 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4307 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4322 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4323 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4324 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4338 | ||
| 936 | b | k | |a 08.31 |q ASE |
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 12 |j 2010 |e 1 |b 04 |c 12 |h 1-18 | ||
| author_variant |
f o fo |
|---|---|
| matchkey_str |
article:18746373:2010----::eainlreadnoh |
| hierarchy_sort_str |
2010 |
| bklnumber |
08.31 |
| publishDate |
2010 |
| allfields |
10.1007/s12133-010-0072-0 doi (DE-627)SPR024441651 (SPR)s12133-010-0072-0-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 100 ASE 08.31 bkl Orilia, Francesco verfasserin aut Relational Order and Onto-Thematic Roles 2010 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Abstract States of affairs involving a non-symmetric relation such as loving are said to have a relational order, something that distinguishes, for instance, Romeo’s loving Juliet from Juliet’s loving Romeo. Relational order can be properly understood by appealing to o-roles, i.e., ontological counterparts of what linguists call thematic roles, e.g., agent, patient, instrument, and the like. This move allows us to meet the appropriate desiderata for a theory of relational order. In contrast, the main theories that try to do without o-roles, proposed by philosophers such as Russell, Hochberg, and Fine, are in trouble with one or another of these desiderata. After discussing some alternatives, it is proposed that o-roles are best viewed as very generic properties characterizable as ways in which objects jointly exemplify a relation. This makes for exemplification relations understood as complex entities having o-roles as building blocks. Relational Order (dpeaa)DE-He213 Noun Phrase (dpeaa)DE-He213 Exemplification Relation (dpeaa)DE-He213 Ontological Commitment (dpeaa)DE-He213 Factual Order (dpeaa)DE-He213 Enthalten in Metaphysica Berlin : de Gruyter, 1999 12(2010), 1 vom: 04. Dez., Seite 1-18 (DE-627)550218203 (DE-600)2396831-X 1874-6373 nnns volume:12 year:2010 number:1 day:04 month:12 pages:1-18 https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12133-010-0072-0 lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_266 GBV_ILN_702 GBV_ILN_2006 GBV_ILN_2010 GBV_ILN_2020 GBV_ILN_2057 GBV_ILN_2190 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4035 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4242 GBV_ILN_4246 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4251 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4338 08.31 ASE AR 12 2010 1 04 12 1-18 |
| spelling |
10.1007/s12133-010-0072-0 doi (DE-627)SPR024441651 (SPR)s12133-010-0072-0-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 100 ASE 08.31 bkl Orilia, Francesco verfasserin aut Relational Order and Onto-Thematic Roles 2010 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Abstract States of affairs involving a non-symmetric relation such as loving are said to have a relational order, something that distinguishes, for instance, Romeo’s loving Juliet from Juliet’s loving Romeo. Relational order can be properly understood by appealing to o-roles, i.e., ontological counterparts of what linguists call thematic roles, e.g., agent, patient, instrument, and the like. This move allows us to meet the appropriate desiderata for a theory of relational order. In contrast, the main theories that try to do without o-roles, proposed by philosophers such as Russell, Hochberg, and Fine, are in trouble with one or another of these desiderata. After discussing some alternatives, it is proposed that o-roles are best viewed as very generic properties characterizable as ways in which objects jointly exemplify a relation. This makes for exemplification relations understood as complex entities having o-roles as building blocks. Relational Order (dpeaa)DE-He213 Noun Phrase (dpeaa)DE-He213 Exemplification Relation (dpeaa)DE-He213 Ontological Commitment (dpeaa)DE-He213 Factual Order (dpeaa)DE-He213 Enthalten in Metaphysica Berlin : de Gruyter, 1999 12(2010), 1 vom: 04. Dez., Seite 1-18 (DE-627)550218203 (DE-600)2396831-X 1874-6373 nnns volume:12 year:2010 number:1 day:04 month:12 pages:1-18 https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12133-010-0072-0 lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_266 GBV_ILN_702 GBV_ILN_2006 GBV_ILN_2010 GBV_ILN_2020 GBV_ILN_2057 GBV_ILN_2190 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4035 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4242 GBV_ILN_4246 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4251 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4338 08.31 ASE AR 12 2010 1 04 12 1-18 |
| allfields_unstemmed |
10.1007/s12133-010-0072-0 doi (DE-627)SPR024441651 (SPR)s12133-010-0072-0-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 100 ASE 08.31 bkl Orilia, Francesco verfasserin aut Relational Order and Onto-Thematic Roles 2010 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Abstract States of affairs involving a non-symmetric relation such as loving are said to have a relational order, something that distinguishes, for instance, Romeo’s loving Juliet from Juliet’s loving Romeo. Relational order can be properly understood by appealing to o-roles, i.e., ontological counterparts of what linguists call thematic roles, e.g., agent, patient, instrument, and the like. This move allows us to meet the appropriate desiderata for a theory of relational order. In contrast, the main theories that try to do without o-roles, proposed by philosophers such as Russell, Hochberg, and Fine, are in trouble with one or another of these desiderata. After discussing some alternatives, it is proposed that o-roles are best viewed as very generic properties characterizable as ways in which objects jointly exemplify a relation. This makes for exemplification relations understood as complex entities having o-roles as building blocks. Relational Order (dpeaa)DE-He213 Noun Phrase (dpeaa)DE-He213 Exemplification Relation (dpeaa)DE-He213 Ontological Commitment (dpeaa)DE-He213 Factual Order (dpeaa)DE-He213 Enthalten in Metaphysica Berlin : de Gruyter, 1999 12(2010), 1 vom: 04. Dez., Seite 1-18 (DE-627)550218203 (DE-600)2396831-X 1874-6373 nnns volume:12 year:2010 number:1 day:04 month:12 pages:1-18 https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12133-010-0072-0 lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_266 GBV_ILN_702 GBV_ILN_2006 GBV_ILN_2010 GBV_ILN_2020 GBV_ILN_2057 GBV_ILN_2190 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4035 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4242 GBV_ILN_4246 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4251 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4338 08.31 ASE AR 12 2010 1 04 12 1-18 |
| allfieldsGer |
10.1007/s12133-010-0072-0 doi (DE-627)SPR024441651 (SPR)s12133-010-0072-0-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 100 ASE 08.31 bkl Orilia, Francesco verfasserin aut Relational Order and Onto-Thematic Roles 2010 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Abstract States of affairs involving a non-symmetric relation such as loving are said to have a relational order, something that distinguishes, for instance, Romeo’s loving Juliet from Juliet’s loving Romeo. Relational order can be properly understood by appealing to o-roles, i.e., ontological counterparts of what linguists call thematic roles, e.g., agent, patient, instrument, and the like. This move allows us to meet the appropriate desiderata for a theory of relational order. In contrast, the main theories that try to do without o-roles, proposed by philosophers such as Russell, Hochberg, and Fine, are in trouble with one or another of these desiderata. After discussing some alternatives, it is proposed that o-roles are best viewed as very generic properties characterizable as ways in which objects jointly exemplify a relation. This makes for exemplification relations understood as complex entities having o-roles as building blocks. Relational Order (dpeaa)DE-He213 Noun Phrase (dpeaa)DE-He213 Exemplification Relation (dpeaa)DE-He213 Ontological Commitment (dpeaa)DE-He213 Factual Order (dpeaa)DE-He213 Enthalten in Metaphysica Berlin : de Gruyter, 1999 12(2010), 1 vom: 04. Dez., Seite 1-18 (DE-627)550218203 (DE-600)2396831-X 1874-6373 nnns volume:12 year:2010 number:1 day:04 month:12 pages:1-18 https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12133-010-0072-0 lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_266 GBV_ILN_702 GBV_ILN_2006 GBV_ILN_2010 GBV_ILN_2020 GBV_ILN_2057 GBV_ILN_2190 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4035 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4242 GBV_ILN_4246 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4251 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4338 08.31 ASE AR 12 2010 1 04 12 1-18 |
| allfieldsSound |
10.1007/s12133-010-0072-0 doi (DE-627)SPR024441651 (SPR)s12133-010-0072-0-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 100 ASE 08.31 bkl Orilia, Francesco verfasserin aut Relational Order and Onto-Thematic Roles 2010 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Abstract States of affairs involving a non-symmetric relation such as loving are said to have a relational order, something that distinguishes, for instance, Romeo’s loving Juliet from Juliet’s loving Romeo. Relational order can be properly understood by appealing to o-roles, i.e., ontological counterparts of what linguists call thematic roles, e.g., agent, patient, instrument, and the like. This move allows us to meet the appropriate desiderata for a theory of relational order. In contrast, the main theories that try to do without o-roles, proposed by philosophers such as Russell, Hochberg, and Fine, are in trouble with one or another of these desiderata. After discussing some alternatives, it is proposed that o-roles are best viewed as very generic properties characterizable as ways in which objects jointly exemplify a relation. This makes for exemplification relations understood as complex entities having o-roles as building blocks. Relational Order (dpeaa)DE-He213 Noun Phrase (dpeaa)DE-He213 Exemplification Relation (dpeaa)DE-He213 Ontological Commitment (dpeaa)DE-He213 Factual Order (dpeaa)DE-He213 Enthalten in Metaphysica Berlin : de Gruyter, 1999 12(2010), 1 vom: 04. Dez., Seite 1-18 (DE-627)550218203 (DE-600)2396831-X 1874-6373 nnns volume:12 year:2010 number:1 day:04 month:12 pages:1-18 https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12133-010-0072-0 lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_266 GBV_ILN_702 GBV_ILN_2006 GBV_ILN_2010 GBV_ILN_2020 GBV_ILN_2057 GBV_ILN_2190 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4035 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4242 GBV_ILN_4246 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4251 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4338 08.31 ASE AR 12 2010 1 04 12 1-18 |
| language |
English |
| source |
Enthalten in Metaphysica 12(2010), 1 vom: 04. Dez., Seite 1-18 volume:12 year:2010 number:1 day:04 month:12 pages:1-18 |
| sourceStr |
Enthalten in Metaphysica 12(2010), 1 vom: 04. Dez., Seite 1-18 volume:12 year:2010 number:1 day:04 month:12 pages:1-18 |
| format_phy_str_mv |
Article |
| institution |
findex.gbv.de |
| topic_facet |
Relational Order Noun Phrase Exemplification Relation Ontological Commitment Factual Order |
| dewey-raw |
100 |
| isfreeaccess_bool |
false |
| container_title |
Metaphysica |
| authorswithroles_txt_mv |
Orilia, Francesco @@aut@@ |
| publishDateDaySort_date |
2010-12-04T00:00:00Z |
| hierarchy_top_id |
550218203 |
| dewey-sort |
3100 |
| id |
SPR024441651 |
| language_de |
englisch |
| fullrecord |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">SPR024441651</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20220111114702.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">201006s2010 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1007/s12133-010-0072-0</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)SPR024441651</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(SPR)s12133-010-0072-0-e</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">100</subfield><subfield code="q">ASE</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">08.31</subfield><subfield code="2">bkl</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Orilia, Francesco</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Relational Order and Onto-Thematic Roles</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2010</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Abstract States of affairs involving a non-symmetric relation such as loving are said to have a relational order, something that distinguishes, for instance, Romeo’s loving Juliet from Juliet’s loving Romeo. Relational order can be properly understood by appealing to o-roles, i.e., ontological counterparts of what linguists call thematic roles, e.g., agent, patient, instrument, and the like. This move allows us to meet the appropriate desiderata for a theory of relational order. In contrast, the main theories that try to do without o-roles, proposed by philosophers such as Russell, Hochberg, and Fine, are in trouble with one or another of these desiderata. After discussing some alternatives, it is proposed that o-roles are best viewed as very generic properties characterizable as ways in which objects jointly exemplify a relation. This makes for exemplification relations understood as complex entities having o-roles as building blocks.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Relational Order</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Noun Phrase</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Exemplification Relation</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Ontological Commitment</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Factual Order</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">Metaphysica</subfield><subfield code="d">Berlin : de Gruyter, 1999</subfield><subfield code="g">12(2010), 1 vom: 04. Dez., Seite 1-18</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)550218203</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2396831-X</subfield><subfield code="x">1874-6373</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:12</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2010</subfield><subfield code="g">number:1</subfield><subfield code="g">day:04</subfield><subfield code="g">month:12</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:1-18</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12133-010-0072-0</subfield><subfield code="z">lizenzpflichtig</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_SPRINGER</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_266</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_702</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2006</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2010</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2020</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2057</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2190</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4035</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4242</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4246</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4251</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="936" ind1="b" ind2="k"><subfield code="a">08.31</subfield><subfield code="q">ASE</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">12</subfield><subfield code="j">2010</subfield><subfield code="e">1</subfield><subfield code="b">04</subfield><subfield code="c">12</subfield><subfield code="h">1-18</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| author |
Orilia, Francesco |
| spellingShingle |
Orilia, Francesco ddc 100 bkl 08.31 misc Relational Order misc Noun Phrase misc Exemplification Relation misc Ontological Commitment misc Factual Order Relational Order and Onto-Thematic Roles |
| authorStr |
Orilia, Francesco |
| ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv |
@@773@@(DE-627)550218203 |
| format |
electronic Article |
| dewey-ones |
100 - Philosophy & psychology |
| delete_txt_mv |
keep |
| author_role |
aut |
| collection |
springer |
| remote_str |
true |
| illustrated |
Not Illustrated |
| issn |
1874-6373 |
| topic_title |
100 ASE 08.31 bkl Relational Order and Onto-Thematic Roles Relational Order (dpeaa)DE-He213 Noun Phrase (dpeaa)DE-He213 Exemplification Relation (dpeaa)DE-He213 Ontological Commitment (dpeaa)DE-He213 Factual Order (dpeaa)DE-He213 |
| topic |
ddc 100 bkl 08.31 misc Relational Order misc Noun Phrase misc Exemplification Relation misc Ontological Commitment misc Factual Order |
| topic_unstemmed |
ddc 100 bkl 08.31 misc Relational Order misc Noun Phrase misc Exemplification Relation misc Ontological Commitment misc Factual Order |
| topic_browse |
ddc 100 bkl 08.31 misc Relational Order misc Noun Phrase misc Exemplification Relation misc Ontological Commitment misc Factual Order |
| format_facet |
Elektronische Aufsätze Aufsätze Elektronische Ressource |
| format_main_str_mv |
Text Zeitschrift/Artikel |
| carriertype_str_mv |
cr |
| hierarchy_parent_title |
Metaphysica |
| hierarchy_parent_id |
550218203 |
| dewey-tens |
100 - Philosophy |
| hierarchy_top_title |
Metaphysica |
| isfreeaccess_txt |
false |
| familylinks_str_mv |
(DE-627)550218203 (DE-600)2396831-X |
| title |
Relational Order and Onto-Thematic Roles |
| ctrlnum |
(DE-627)SPR024441651 (SPR)s12133-010-0072-0-e |
| title_full |
Relational Order and Onto-Thematic Roles |
| author_sort |
Orilia, Francesco |
| journal |
Metaphysica |
| journalStr |
Metaphysica |
| lang_code |
eng |
| isOA_bool |
false |
| dewey-hundreds |
100 - Philosophy & psychology |
| recordtype |
marc |
| publishDateSort |
2010 |
| contenttype_str_mv |
txt |
| container_start_page |
1 |
| author_browse |
Orilia, Francesco |
| container_volume |
12 |
| class |
100 ASE 08.31 bkl |
| format_se |
Elektronische Aufsätze |
| author-letter |
Orilia, Francesco |
| doi_str_mv |
10.1007/s12133-010-0072-0 |
| dewey-full |
100 |
| title_sort |
relational order and onto-thematic roles |
| title_auth |
Relational Order and Onto-Thematic Roles |
| abstract |
Abstract States of affairs involving a non-symmetric relation such as loving are said to have a relational order, something that distinguishes, for instance, Romeo’s loving Juliet from Juliet’s loving Romeo. Relational order can be properly understood by appealing to o-roles, i.e., ontological counterparts of what linguists call thematic roles, e.g., agent, patient, instrument, and the like. This move allows us to meet the appropriate desiderata for a theory of relational order. In contrast, the main theories that try to do without o-roles, proposed by philosophers such as Russell, Hochberg, and Fine, are in trouble with one or another of these desiderata. After discussing some alternatives, it is proposed that o-roles are best viewed as very generic properties characterizable as ways in which objects jointly exemplify a relation. This makes for exemplification relations understood as complex entities having o-roles as building blocks. |
| abstractGer |
Abstract States of affairs involving a non-symmetric relation such as loving are said to have a relational order, something that distinguishes, for instance, Romeo’s loving Juliet from Juliet’s loving Romeo. Relational order can be properly understood by appealing to o-roles, i.e., ontological counterparts of what linguists call thematic roles, e.g., agent, patient, instrument, and the like. This move allows us to meet the appropriate desiderata for a theory of relational order. In contrast, the main theories that try to do without o-roles, proposed by philosophers such as Russell, Hochberg, and Fine, are in trouble with one or another of these desiderata. After discussing some alternatives, it is proposed that o-roles are best viewed as very generic properties characterizable as ways in which objects jointly exemplify a relation. This makes for exemplification relations understood as complex entities having o-roles as building blocks. |
| abstract_unstemmed |
Abstract States of affairs involving a non-symmetric relation such as loving are said to have a relational order, something that distinguishes, for instance, Romeo’s loving Juliet from Juliet’s loving Romeo. Relational order can be properly understood by appealing to o-roles, i.e., ontological counterparts of what linguists call thematic roles, e.g., agent, patient, instrument, and the like. This move allows us to meet the appropriate desiderata for a theory of relational order. In contrast, the main theories that try to do without o-roles, proposed by philosophers such as Russell, Hochberg, and Fine, are in trouble with one or another of these desiderata. After discussing some alternatives, it is proposed that o-roles are best viewed as very generic properties characterizable as ways in which objects jointly exemplify a relation. This makes for exemplification relations understood as complex entities having o-roles as building blocks. |
| collection_details |
GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_266 GBV_ILN_702 GBV_ILN_2006 GBV_ILN_2010 GBV_ILN_2020 GBV_ILN_2057 GBV_ILN_2190 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4035 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4242 GBV_ILN_4246 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4251 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4338 |
| container_issue |
1 |
| title_short |
Relational Order and Onto-Thematic Roles |
| url |
https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12133-010-0072-0 |
| remote_bool |
true |
| ppnlink |
550218203 |
| mediatype_str_mv |
c |
| isOA_txt |
false |
| hochschulschrift_bool |
false |
| doi_str |
10.1007/s12133-010-0072-0 |
| up_date |
2024-07-04T00:56:40.104Z |
| _version_ |
1803607972359700480 |
| fullrecord_marcxml |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">SPR024441651</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20220111114702.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">201006s2010 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1007/s12133-010-0072-0</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)SPR024441651</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(SPR)s12133-010-0072-0-e</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">100</subfield><subfield code="q">ASE</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">08.31</subfield><subfield code="2">bkl</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Orilia, Francesco</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Relational Order and Onto-Thematic Roles</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2010</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Abstract States of affairs involving a non-symmetric relation such as loving are said to have a relational order, something that distinguishes, for instance, Romeo’s loving Juliet from Juliet’s loving Romeo. Relational order can be properly understood by appealing to o-roles, i.e., ontological counterparts of what linguists call thematic roles, e.g., agent, patient, instrument, and the like. This move allows us to meet the appropriate desiderata for a theory of relational order. In contrast, the main theories that try to do without o-roles, proposed by philosophers such as Russell, Hochberg, and Fine, are in trouble with one or another of these desiderata. After discussing some alternatives, it is proposed that o-roles are best viewed as very generic properties characterizable as ways in which objects jointly exemplify a relation. This makes for exemplification relations understood as complex entities having o-roles as building blocks.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Relational Order</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Noun Phrase</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Exemplification Relation</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Ontological Commitment</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Factual Order</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">Metaphysica</subfield><subfield code="d">Berlin : de Gruyter, 1999</subfield><subfield code="g">12(2010), 1 vom: 04. Dez., Seite 1-18</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)550218203</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2396831-X</subfield><subfield code="x">1874-6373</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:12</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2010</subfield><subfield code="g">number:1</subfield><subfield code="g">day:04</subfield><subfield code="g">month:12</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:1-18</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12133-010-0072-0</subfield><subfield code="z">lizenzpflichtig</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_SPRINGER</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_266</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_702</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2006</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2010</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2020</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2057</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2190</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4035</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4242</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4246</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4251</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="936" ind1="b" ind2="k"><subfield code="a">08.31</subfield><subfield code="q">ASE</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">12</subfield><subfield code="j">2010</subfield><subfield code="e">1</subfield><subfield code="b">04</subfield><subfield code="c">12</subfield><subfield code="h">1-18</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| score |
7.399288 |