Cover not available
Article published In:
Evolutionary Linguistic Theory
Vol. 4:2 (2022) ► pp.153–190

Inside names

A contextualist approach to the syntax and semantics of direct reference

| University of Verona
| University of Trieste
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.
Keywords: names, complex names, character of names, syntax of reference, rigid reference, contextualism
Article outline
  • Introduction
  • Some issues about rigid reference
  • Nouns and names: Semantic issues
  • Names and identity
  • Three philosophical puzzles on belief and proper names
  • Nouns and names: Syntactic issues
  • Conclusions
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 7 May 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/elt.00041.del
References (28)
References
Acquaviva, P. (2019). Two studies on the internal syntax of complex names. Italian journal of linguistics, 31 (2), 3–36.Google Scholar
Chierchia, G. (2021). On being trivial: Grammar vs. logic. The semantic conception of logic. Forthcoming in G. Sagi and J. Woods (eds.), The Semantic Conception of Logic: Essays on Consequence, Invariance, and Meaning. Cambridge, Britain: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Collins, C., & Postal, P. M. (2012). Imposters: A study of pronominal agreement. Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cresswell, M. J., & Von Stechow, A. (1982). “De Re” Belief Generalized. Linguistics and Philosophy, 503–535. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cumming, S. (2008). Variabilism. Philosophical Review, 117 (4), 525–554. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Del Pinal, G. (2019). The logicality of language: A new take on triviality, “ungrammaticality”, and logical form. Noûs, 53 (4), 785–818. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gajewski, J. (2002). L-analyticity and natural language. Manuscript, MIT.Google Scholar
(2008). More on quantifiers in comparative clauses. Semantics and Linguistic Theory, 18 1, 340–357. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Geurts, B. (1997). Good news about the description theory of names. Journal of semantics, 14 (4), 319–348. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haas-Spohn, U. (1995). Versteckte Indexikalität und subjektive Bedeutung. Berlin: Akademie Verlag. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hintikka, J. (1962). Knowledge and Belief: An Introduction to the Logic of the Two Notions. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Kaplan, D. (1968). Quantifying In. Synthèse, 19(1–2), 178–214. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1989). Demonstratives. In J. Almog, J. Perry, & H. Wettstein (Eds.), Themes from Kaplan (pp. 481–563). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kripke, S. A. (1979). A puzzle about belief. In A. Margalit (ed.), Meaning and Use (pp. 239–83). Dordrecht: Reidel. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1980). Naming and necessity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Lewis, D. (1979). Attitudes de dicto and de se. The philosophical review, 88 (4), 513–543. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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
Matushansky, O. (2008). On the linguistic complexity of proper names. Linguistics and philosophy, 31 (5), 573–627. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Putnam, H. (1975). The meaning of ‘meaning’. Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 7 1, 131–193. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Quine, W. V. O. (1956). Quantifiers and propositional attitudes. The Journal of Philosophy, 53 1, 177–187. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rieppel, M. (2017). Names, masks, and double vision. Ergo, an Open Access Journal of Philosophy, 4 (8), 229–257. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Russell, B. (1905). On denoting. Mind, 14 (56), 479–493. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Salmon, N. (1986). Frege’s Puzzle. Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. PressGoogle Scholar
Stalnaker, R. (1978). Assertion. Syntax and Semantics, 9 1, 315–332. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1981). Indexical Belief. Synthese, 49 1, 129–151. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1987). Semantics for Belief. Philosophical Topics, 15 1, 177–190. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1999). Context and Content. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Fiorin, Gaetano & Denis Delfitto
2024. A contextual theory of fictional names. Intercultural Pragmatics 21:3 ► pp. 349 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.