A bundle theory of words

Abstract

It has been a common assumption that words are substances that instantiate or have properties. In this paper, I question the assumption that our ontology of words requires posting substances by outlining a bundle theory of words, wherein words are bundles of various sorts of properties (such as semantic, phonetic, orthographic, and grammatical properties). I argue that this view can better account for certain phenomena than substance theories, is ontologically more parsimonious, and coheres with claims in linguistics.

Internalist priorities in a philosophy of words

“…What is wanted is some feature(s) of a word, which, if shared between x and y, will make them both W -type things. The problem is that no class of features appears to suffice for all cases (cf., Feinsinger, 2021;Miller, 2019). For example, two tokens of the form / baenk/ might count as the same word if our concern is transcription or pronunciation, but not semantically or syntactically, for the phonemic form is ambiguous between riversides and financial institutions, at least for the nominal.…”

“…Devitt (2006) is more nominalist: words are tokens that satisfy certain high-level functional roles. Miller (2019) suggests that they are bundles of properties, both mind internal and mind external. 4 Millikan (2005) and Feinsinger (2021) think of words as social entities supported by community co-ordination.…”

“…One concessive move here would be to endorse Miller's (2019) bundle account, where a word is individuated in terms of a bundle of properties, both mind internal and mind external, which need not all be instantiated for a token of the type to be realised. In particular, Miller rightly points out that we surely intend to speak of the very same word as both mental and external (The very words I was thinking were the ones you wrote).…”

Words, Species, and Kinds

“…Alternatively, Miller (2021) has argued that words are bundles of properties. Miller argues that 'if tokens are bundles of properties, then types are bundles (or sets or collections or pluralities) of tokens, where those types have their criterion of identity in virtue of the properties of the tokens that are members of type ' (2021: 5741).…”

Using a two-dimensional model from social ontology to explain the puzzling metaphysical features of words

“…Further, I remain neutral on other questions related to object theory that have to do with substance theory and bundle theory; the two-dimensional model commits to neither. SeeMiller (2019) for a way in which a word might be a bundle of properties under a one-category bundle theory.…”