The puzzle about copredication is that (1)-(3) ascribe two properties that, at least prima facie, can’t be jointly instantiated, e.g. being delicious (a property of food items) and lasting hours (a property of events); being heavy (a property of physical objects) and being informative (a property of informational entities); being vandalised (a property of physical buildings) and calling in debts (a property of institutions). Nevertheless, it is easy to conceive of contexts where each of (1)-(3) seem to be true. This problem has driven theorists to a variety of dramatic conclusions, most notably that referential semantics should be jettisoned altogether (Chomsky 2000, Pietroski 2005, Collins 2009, 2011, and forthcoming). Those who are moved by the puzzle but wish to preserve referential semantics have offered a range of complex semantic theories (Pustejovsky 1995, Luo 2012, Asher 2011, Gotham 2017). The details of these views vary considerably, but they share the common general idea: nouns involved in copredication (such as ‘book’) belong to a kind of complex semantic type (in this case, a type which in some manner combines being physical and being informational), and which (perhaps after some further syntactic and semantic footwork) allows the two conflicting properties or modifiers (‘heavy’ and ‘informative’ in this case), to apply. However, pressure on such solutions is placed by issues concerning counting and individuation. Consider, for example, a context containing three copies of War and Peace. In one sense, it seems that the context involves three books (and thus that books are counted and individuated as if they were merely physical objects), and in another sense, it seems that the context involves just one book (and thus that books are counted and individuated as if they were merely

中文翻译：

---

共预测，计数和个体化标准：对哥谭的回应

关于共同预测的困惑在于：（1）-（3）赋予至少在表面上不能被共同实例化的两个属性，例如美味（食物的属性）和持续时间（事件的属性）；笨重（物理对象的属性）和信息丰富（信息实体的属性）；被破坏（实体建筑物的财产）并要求债务（机构的财产）。但是，很容易想到其中（1）-（3）中的每一个都是真实的上下文。这个问题驱使理论家得出各种各样的结论，最值得注意的是应该完全抛弃参照语义（Chomsky 2000，Pietroski 2005，Collins 2009、2011等）。那些为难题所困扰但希望保留引用语义的人提供了一系列复杂的语义理论（Pustejovsky 1995，Luo 2012，Asher 2011，Gotham 2017）。这些视图的细节差异很大，但是它们具有共同的总体思想：共谓中涉及的名词（例如“书”）属于一种复杂的语义类型（在这种情况下，这种类型以某种方式组合为物理和语义）。是信息性的），并且哪些（也许经过一些进一步的语法和语义操作）可以应用两个相互矛盾的属性或修饰语（在这种情况下为“沉重”和“信息性”）。然而，关于这种解决方案的压力是与计数和个性化有关的问题。例如，考虑一个包含三份《战争与和平》的上下文。在某种意义上，