1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Pragmatics
  4. Volume 32, Issue 4
  5. Article
Volume 32, Issue 4
  • ISSN 1018-2101
  • E-ISSN: 2406-4238
EPUB
PDF

Abstract

Abstract

The debate over the meanings of indexical expressions has relied heavily on the method of counterexamples. This paper challenges that method by showing that purported counterexamples can often be explained away by appeal to . For these counterexamples to establish anything about indexical reference, we must identify the conditions under which theorists can legitimately appeal to perspective shifts. Some tests for semantic content are considered and it is argued that none of them can tell us when appeal to perspective shift is admissible. The paper then considers how we should proceed if we become convinced that there is no way to identify the content of indexical expressions, offering reasons in favour of a nihilist conception of character over an epistemicist or pluralist conception.

© International Pragmatics Association
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/prag.21007.bow
2022-02-24
2024-12-05

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/prag.21007.bow
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/prag.21007.bow.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1075/prag.21007.bow&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Åkerman, Jonas
    2015 “The Communication Desideratum and Theories of Indexical Reference.” Mind & Language30: 474–99. 10.1111/mila.12087
     https://doi.org/10.1111/mila.12087 [Google Scholar]
  2. 2017 “Indexicals and Reference-Shifting: Towards a Pragmatic Approach.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research95: 117–152. 10.1111/phpr.12216
     https://doi.org/10.1111/phpr.12216 [Google Scholar]
  3. Bowker, Mark
    2019 “Underdetermination, Domain Restriction, and Theory Choice.” Mind & Language34 (2): 205–220. 10.1111/mila.12207
     https://doi.org/10.1111/mila.12207 [Google Scholar]
  4. 2022 “Ineliminable Underdetermination and Context-Shifting Arguments.” Inquiry65 (2): 215–236. 10.1080/0020174X.2019.1688176
     https://doi.org/10.1080/0020174X.2019.1688176 [Google Scholar]
  5. Cohen, Jonathan
    2013 “Indexicality and the Puzzle of the Answering Machine.” Journal of Philosophy110: 5–32. 10.5840/jphil2013110143
     https://doi.org/10.5840/jphil2013110143 [Google Scholar]
  6. Corazza, Eros, Willaim Fish, and Jonathan Gorvett
    2002 “Who is I?” Philosophical Studies107: 1–21. 10.1023/A:1013111419036
     https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1013111419036 [Google Scholar]
  7. Dodd, Dylan, and Paula Sweeney
    2010 “Indexicals and Utterance Production.” Philosophical Studies150: 331–348. 10.1007/s11098‑009‑9416‑4
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-009-9416-4 [Google Scholar]
  8. Egan, Andy
    2009 “Billboards, Bombs and Shotgun Weddings.” Synthese166: 251–279. 10.1007/s11229‑007‑9284‑4
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-007-9284-4 [Google Scholar]
  9. Enoch, David
    2007 “Epistemicism and Nihilism About Vagueness: What’s the Difference?” Philosophical Studies133: 285–311. 10.1007/s11098‑005‑5337‑z
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-005-5337-z [Google Scholar]
  10. Gómez-Torrente, M.
    2020 Roads to Reference: An Essay on Reference Fixing in Natural Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Kaplan, David
    1989a “Demonstratives: An Essay on the Semantics, Logic, Metaphysics, and Epistemology of Demonstrative and Other Indexicals.” InThemes from Kaplan, ed. byJ. Almog, J. Perry, and H. Wettstein, 481–563. New York: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. 1989b “Afterthoughts.” InThemes from Kaplan, ed. byJ. Almog, J. Perry, and H. Wettstein, 565–614. New York: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Kripke, Saul
    1977 “Speaker’s Referent and Semantic Referent.” Midwest Studies in Philosophy2: 255–276. 10.1111/j.1475‑4975.1977.tb00045.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4975.1977.tb00045.x [Google Scholar]
  14. Michaelson, Eliot
    2014 “Shifty Characters.” Philosophical Studies167: 519–540. 10.1007/s11098‑013‑0109‑7
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-013-0109-7 [Google Scholar]
  15. 2016 “The Lying Test.” Mind & Language31: 470–499. 10.1111/mila.12115
     https://doi.org/10.1111/mila.12115 [Google Scholar]
  16. Michaelson, Eliot, and Jonathan Cohen
    2013 “Indexicality and the Paradox of the Answering Machine.” Philosophy Compass8: 580–592. 10.1111/phc3.12039
     https://doi.org/10.1111/phc3.12039 [Google Scholar]
  17. Montminy, Martin
    2010 “Context and Communication: A Defense of Intentionalism.” Journal of Pragmatics42: 2910–2918. 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.06.010
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.06.010 [Google Scholar]
  18. Mount, Alison
    2008 “The Impurity of “Pure” Indexicals.” Philosophical Studies138: 193–209. 10.1007/s11098‑006‑9031‑6
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-006-9031-6 [Google Scholar]
  19. 2015 “Character, Impropriety, and Success: A Unified Account of Indexicals.” Mind & Language20: 1–21. 10.1111/mila.12069
     https://doi.org/10.1111/mila.12069 [Google Scholar]
  20. Nunberg, Geoffrey
    1993 “Indexicality and Deixis.” Linguistics and Philosophy16: 1–43. 10.1007/BF00984721
     https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00984721 [Google Scholar]
  21. Perry, John
    2003 “Predelli’s Threatening Note: Contexts, Utterances, and Tokens in the Philosophy of Language.” Journal of Pragmatics35: 373–387. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(02)00141‑8
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00141-8 [Google Scholar]
  22. 2006 “Using Indexicals.” InThe Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of Language, ed. byM. Devitt, and R. Hanley, 314–34. Malden, MA: Blackwell. 10.1002/9780470757031.ch17
     https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470757031.ch17 [Google Scholar]
  23. Predelli, Stefano
    1998a “‘I Am Not Here Now’.” Analysis58: 107–115. 10.1093/analys/58.2.107
     https://doi.org/10.1093/analys/58.2.107 [Google Scholar]
  24. 1998b “Utterance, Interpretation and the Logic of Indexicals.” Mind & Language13: 400–414. 10.1111/1468‑0017.00083
     https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0017.00083 [Google Scholar]
  25. 2002 “Intentions, Indexicals and Communication.” Analysis62: 310–316. 10.1093/analys/62.4.310
     https://doi.org/10.1093/analys/62.4.310 [Google Scholar]
  26. 2011 “I Am Still Not Here Now.” Erkenntnis74: 289–303. 10.1007/s10670‑010‑9224‑4
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s10670-010-9224-4 [Google Scholar]
  27. Rabern, Brian and Derek Ball
    2019 “Monsters and the Theoretical Role of Context.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research98 (2): 392–416. 10.1111/phpr.12449
     https://doi.org/10.1111/phpr.12449 [Google Scholar]
  28. Radelescu, Alexandru
    2018 “The Difference Between Indexicals and Demonstratives.” Synthese195: 3173–3196. 10.1007/s11229‑017‑1367‑2
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-017-1367-2 [Google Scholar]
  29. Recanati, François
    2000 Oratio Obliqua, Oratio Recta. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/5163.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/5163.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  30. 2004 Literal Meaning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Romdenh-Romluc, Komarine
    2002 “Now the French are Invading England!” Analysis62: 34–41. 10.1093/analys/62.1.34
     https://doi.org/10.1093/analys/62.1.34 [Google Scholar]
  32. 2006 “‘I’.” Philosophical Studies128: 257–283. 10.1007/s11098‑004‑7792‑3
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-004-7792-3 [Google Scholar]
  33. 2008 “First-person Thought and the Use of ‘I’.” Synthese163: 145–156. 10.1007/s11229‑007‑9194‑5
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-007-9194-5 [Google Scholar]
  34. Sherman, B.
    2015 “Constructing Contexts.” Ergo2 (23): 581–605.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Sidelle, Alan
    1991 “The Answering Machine Paradox.” Canadian Journal of Philosophy21: 525–539. 10.1080/00455091.1991.10717260
     https://doi.org/10.1080/00455091.1991.10717260 [Google Scholar]
  36. Smith, Quentin
    1989 “The Multiple Uses of Indexicals.” Synthese78: 167–191. 10.1007/BF00869371
     https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00869371 [Google Scholar]
  37. Stevens, Graham
    2009 “Utterance at a Distance.” Philosophical Studies143: 213–221. 10.1007/s11098‑007‑9199‑4
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-007-9199-4 [Google Scholar]
  38. Voltolini, Alberto
    2008 “Fiction as a Base of Interpretation Contexts.” Synthese153: 23–47. 10.1007/s11229‑006‑0001‑5
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-006-0001-5 [Google Scholar]
  39. von Fintel, Kai, and Anthony Gillies
    2011 “‘Might’ Made Right.” InEpistemic Modality, ed. byA. Egan, and B. Weatherson, 108–130. Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199591596.003.0004
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199591596.003.0004 [Google Scholar]
  40. Weatherson, Brian
    2002 “Misleading Indexicals.” Analysis62: 308–310. 10.1093/analys/62.4.308
     https://doi.org/10.1093/analys/62.4.308 [Google Scholar]
  41. Williamson, Timothy
    1994a Vagueness. London, Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. 1994b “Definiteness and Knowability.” The Southern Journal of Philosophy33: 171–191. 10.1111/j.2041‑6962.1995.tb00769.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2041-6962.1995.tb00769.x [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/prag.21007.bow
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): character; content; context; epistemicism; nihilism; pluralism

Most Cited

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