Inside names
A contextualist approach to the syntax and semantics of direct reference
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.
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
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Collins, C., & Postal, P. M. (2012). Imposters:
A study of pronominal agreement. Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cresswell, M. J., & Von Stechow, A. (1982). “De
Re” Belief Generalized. Linguistics and
Philosophy, 503–535. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cumming, S. (2008). Variabilism. Philosophical
Review,
117
(4), 525–554. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Del Pinal, G. (2019). The
logicality of language: A new take on triviality, “ungrammaticality”, and logical
form. Noûs,
53
(4), 785–818. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Gajewski, J. (2002). L-analyticity
and natural
language. Manuscript, MIT.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Gajewski, J. (2008). More
on quantifiers in comparative clauses. Semantics and Linguistic
Theory,
18
1, 340–357. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Geurts, B. (1997). Good
news about the description theory of names. Journal of
semantics,
14
(4), 319–348. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Haas-Spohn, U. (1995). Versteckte
Indexikalität und subjektive Bedeutung. Berlin: Akademie Verlag. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hintikka, J. (1962). Knowledge
and Belief: An Introduction to the Logic of the Two
Notions. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kaplan, D. (1968). Quantifying
In. Synthèse, 19(1–2), 178–214. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kaplan, D. (1989). Demonstratives. In J. Almog, J. Perry, & H. Wettstein (Eds.), Themes
from
Kaplan (pp. 481–563). Oxford: Oxford University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kripke, S. A. (1979). A
puzzle about belief. In A. Margalit (ed.), Meaning
and
Use (pp. 239–83). Dordrecht: Reidel. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kripke, S. A. (1980). Naming
and necessity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Lewis, D. (1979). Attitudes
de dicto and de se. The philosophical
review,
88
(4), 513–543. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Matushansky, O. (2008). On
the linguistic complexity of proper names. Linguistics and
philosophy,
31
(5), 573–627. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Putnam, H. (1975). The
meaning of ‘meaning’. Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of
Science,
7
1, 131–193. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Quine, W. V. O. (1956). Quantifiers
and propositional attitudes. The Journal of
Philosophy,
53
1, 177–187. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Rieppel, M. (2017). Names,
masks, and double vision. Ergo, an Open Access Journal of
Philosophy,
4
(8), 229–257. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Russell, B. (1905). On
denoting. Mind,
14
(56), 479–493. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Salmon, N. (1986). Frege’s
Puzzle. Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Stalnaker, R. (1978). Assertion. Syntax
and
Semantics,
9
1, 315–332. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Stalnaker, R. (1981). Indexical
Belief. Synthese,
49
1, 129–151. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Stalnaker, R. (1987). Semantics
for Belief. Philosophical
Topics,
15
1, 177–190. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Stalnaker, R. (1999). Context
and Content. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](//benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
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.