1887
Volume 4, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2589-1588
  • E-ISSN: 2589-1596
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

In this contribution, we offer a contextualist analysis of names whereby a name N is used as a felicitous referential term in all and only those contexts of utterance in which N is intended to refer to a unique referent by all cognitive agents that are relevant in the context. This analysis has important across-the-board virtues. It reduces the distance between common nouns and names, under the insight that names are a highly specific case of a more general phenomenon consisting in the pragmatic modulation of the meaning of common nouns. It successfully ties to an important body of syntactic evidence, and contributes to elucidate, in an original and productive manner, many of the unsolved issues concerning the syntactic structure of (complex) names. Finally, it makes a number of philosophical puzzles virtually dissolve without giving up rigid reference for names, but crucially suggesting that the causal theory of reference becomes far-fetched once the linguistic structure of names and their actual use in language and cognition have been carefully evaluated.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/elt.00041.del
2023-05-07
2024-04-22
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Acquaviva, P.
    (2019) Two studies on the internal syntax of complex names. Italian journal of linguistics, 31(2), 3–36.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Chierchia, G.
    (2021) On being trivial: Grammar vs. logic. The semantic conception of logic. Forthcoming inG. Sagi and J. Woods (eds.), The Semantic Conception of Logic: Essays on Consequence, Invariance, and Meaning. Cambridge, Britain: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Collins, C., & Postal, P. M.
    (2012) Imposters: A study of pronominal agreement. Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press. 10.7551/mitpress/9780262016889.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262016889.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  4. Cresswell, M. J., & Von Stechow, A.
    (1982) “De Re” Belief Generalized. Linguistics and Philosophy, 503–535. 10.1007/BF00355585
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00355585 [Google Scholar]
  5. Cumming, S.
    (2008) Variabilism. Philosophical Review, 117(4), 525–554. 10.1215/00318108‑2008‑015
    https://doi.org/10.1215/00318108-2008-015 [Google Scholar]
  6. Del Pinal, G.
    (2019) The logicality of language: A new take on triviality, “ungrammaticality”, and logical form. Noûs, 53(4), 785–818. 10.1111/nous.12235
    https://doi.org/10.1111/nous.12235 [Google Scholar]
  7. Gajewski, J.
    (2002) L-analyticity and natural language. Manuscript, MIT.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. (2008) More on quantifiers in comparative clauses. Semantics and Linguistic Theory, 181, 340–357. 10.3765/salt.v18i0.2494
    https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v18i0.2494 [Google Scholar]
  9. Geurts, B.
    (1997) Good news about the description theory of names. Journal of semantics, 14(4), 319–348. 10.1093/jos/14.4.319
    https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/14.4.319 [Google Scholar]
  10. Haas-Spohn, U.
    (1995) Versteckte Indexikalität und subjektive Bedeutung. Berlin: Akademie Verlag. 10.1515/9783050071695
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783050071695 [Google Scholar]
  11. Hintikka, J.
    (1962) Knowledge and Belief: An Introduction to the Logic of the Two Notions. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Kaplan, D.
    (1968) Quantifying In. Synthèse, 19(1–2), 178–214. 10.1007/BF00568057
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00568057 [Google Scholar]
  13. (1989) Demonstratives. InJ. Almog, J. Perry, & H. Wettstein (Eds.), Themes from Kaplan (pp.481–563). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Kripke, S. A.
    (1979) A puzzle about belief. InA. Margalit (ed.), Meaning and Use (pp.239–83). Dordrecht: Reidel. 10.1007/978‑1‑4020‑4104‑4_20
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-4104-4_20 [Google Scholar]
  15. (1980) Naming and necessity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Lewis, D.
    (1979) Attitudes de dicto and de se. The philosophical review, 88(4), 513–543. 10.2307/2184843
    https://doi.org/10.2307/2184843 [Google Scholar]
  17. Longobardi, G.
    (1994) Reference and proper names: A theory of N-movement in syntax and logical form. Linguistic Inquiry, 25(4), 609–665.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Matushansky, O.
    (2008) On the linguistic complexity of proper names. Linguistics and philosophy, 31(5), 573–627. 10.1007/s10988‑008‑9050‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-008-9050-1 [Google Scholar]
  19. Putnam, H.
    (1975) The meaning of ‘meaning’. Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 71, 131–193. 10.1017/CBO9780511625251.014
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511625251.014 [Google Scholar]
  20. Quine, W. V. O.
    (1956) Quantifiers and propositional attitudes. The Journal of Philosophy, 531, 177–187. 10.2307/2022451
    https://doi.org/10.2307/2022451 [Google Scholar]
  21. Rieppel, M.
    (2017) Names, masks, and double vision. Ergo, an Open Access Journal of Philosophy, 4(8), 229–257. 10.3998/ergo.12405314.0004.008
    https://doi.org/10.3998/ergo.12405314.0004.008 [Google Scholar]
  22. Rosch, E., Mervis, C. B., Gray, W. D., Johnson, D. M., & Boyes-Braem, P.
    (1976) Basic objects in natural categories. Cognitive psychology, 8(3), 382–439. 10.1016/0010‑0285(76)90013‑X
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(76)90013-X [Google Scholar]
  23. Russell, B.
    (1905) On denoting. Mind, 14(56), 479–493. 10.1093/mind/XIV.4.479
    https://doi.org/10.1093/mind/XIV.4.479 [Google Scholar]
  24. Salmon, N.
    (1986) Frege’s Puzzle. Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Stalnaker, R.
    (1978) Assertion. Syntax and Semantics, 91, 315–332. 10.1163/9789004368873_013
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368873_013 [Google Scholar]
  26. (1981) Indexical Belief. Synthese, 491, 129–151. 10.1007/BF01063917
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01063917 [Google Scholar]
  27. (1987) Semantics for Belief. Philosophical Topics, 151, 177–190. 10.5840/philtopics198715116
    https://doi.org/10.5840/philtopics198715116 [Google Scholar]
  28. (1999) Context and Content. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/0198237073.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/0198237073.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/elt.00041.del
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/elt.00041.del
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error