Related categories
Siblings:
32 found
Search inside:
(import / add options)   Sort by:
  1. Erkki Ahlström (2009). Reference and Complex Demonstratives in English and in Finnish. In Dingfang Shu & Ken Turner (eds.), Contrasting Meanings in Languages of the East and West. Peter Lang.
    Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  2. Emma Borg (2000). Complex Demonstratives. Philosophical Studies 97 (2):229-249.
    Some demonstrative expressions, those we might term ‘bare demonstratives’, appear without any appended descriptive content (e.g. occurrences of ‘this’ or ‘that’ simpliciter). However, it seems that the majority of demonstrative occurrences do not follow this model. ‘Complex demonstratives’ is the collective term I shall use for phrases formed by adjoining one or more common nouns to a demonstrative expression (e.g. ‘that cat’, ‘this happy man’) and I will call the combination of predicates immediately concatenated with the demonstrative in such phrases (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  3. David Braun (2008). Complex Demonstratives and Their Singular Contents. Linguistics and Philosophy 31 (1):57-99.
    This paper presents a semantic and pragmatic theory of complex demonstratives. According to this theory, the semantic content of a complex demonstrative, in a context, is simply an object, and the semantic content of a sentence that contains a complex demonstrative, in a context, is a singular proposition. This theory is defended from various objections to direct reference theories of complex demonstratives, including King's objection from quantification into complex demonstratives.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (9 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  4. David Braun (2008). Problems for a Quantificational Theory of Complex Demonstratives. Philosophical Studies 140 (3):335 - 358.
    This paper presents a number of objections to Jeffrey King's quantificational theory of complex demonstratives. Some of these objections have to do with modality, whereas others concern attitude ascriptions. Various possible replies are considered. The debate between quantificational theorists and direct reference theorists over complex demonstratives is compared with recent debates concerning definite descriptions.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  5. David Braun (1994). Structured Characters and Complex Demonstratives. Philosophical Studies 74 (2):193--219.
    A structured character is a semantic value of a certain sort. Like the more familiar Kaplanian characters, structured characters determine the contents of expressions in contexts. But unlike Kaplanian characters, structured characters also have constituent structures. The semantic theories with which most of us are acquainted do not mention structured characters. But I argue in this paper that these familiar semantic theories fail to make obvious distinctions in meaning---distinctions that can be made by a theory that uses structured characters. Thus (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  6. Eros Corazza (2003). Complex Demonstratives Qua Singular Terms. Erkenntnis 59 (2):263 - 283.
    In a recent book, Jeffrey King (King 2001) argues that complexdemonstratives, i.e., noun phrases of the form `this/that F, are not singular terms. As such,they are not devices of direct reference contributing the referent to the proposition expressed.In this essay I challenge King's position and show how a direct reference view can handle the datahe proposes in favor of the quantificational account. I argue that when a complex demonstrativecannot be interpreted as a singular term, it is best understood as a (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (8 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  7. Eros Corazza (2003). Review: Complex Demonstratives: A Quantificational Account. [REVIEW] Mind 112 (448):734-740.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  8. Martin Davies (1982). Individuation and the Semantics of Demonstratives. Journal of Philosophical Logic 11 (3):287 - 310.
    Obsessed by the cases where things go wrong, we pay too little attention to the vastly more numerous cases where they go right, and where it is perhaps easier to see that the descriptive content of the expression concerned is wholly at the service of this function [of identifying reference], a function which is complementary to that of predication and contains no element of predication in itself (Strawson [1974], p. 66).An earlier version of the paper was written during an enjoyable (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  9. Josh Dever (2001). Complex Demonstratives. Linguistics and Philosophy 24 (3):271-330.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (8 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  10. Paul Elbourne, Seminar in Semantics: Complex Demonstratives.
    This seminar will investigate the semantics of complex demonstratives, that is phrases like that dog with a blue collar and this table where this or that is followed by an NP. There has been much debate recently on the overall semantic shape of these items, with some theorists (e.g. Braun) claiming that they are directly referential in the sense of Kaplan, some (e.g. King) claiming that they are quantificational, some (e.g. Roberts) claiming that they are to be treated as definites (...)
    Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  11. Paul Elbourne (2008). Demonstratives as Individual Concepts. Linguistics and Philosophy 31 (4):409-466.
    Using a version of situation semantics, this article argues that bare and complex demonstratives are interpreted as individual concepts.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (9 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  12. Geoff Georgi (2012). Reference and Ambiguity in Complex Demonstratives. In William P. Kabasenche, Michael O'Rourke & Matthew H. Slater (eds.), Reference and Referring. MIT Press. 357-384.
    Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  13. Michael Glanzberg & Susanna Siegel (2006). Presupposition and Policing in Complex Demonstratives. Noûs 40 (1):1–42.
    In this paper, we offer a theory of the role of the nominal in complex demonstrative expressions, such as 'this dog' or 'that glove with a hole in it'.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  14. John Hawthorne & David Manley (2012). The Reference Book. Oxford University Press.
    This book critically examines some widespread views about the semantic phenomenon of reference and the cognitive phenomenon of singular thought. It begins with a defense of the view that neither is tied to a special relation of causal or epistemic acquaintance. It then challenges the alleged semantic rift between definite and indefinite descriptions on the one hand, and names and demonstratives on the other—a division that has been motivated in part by appeals to considerations of acquaintance. Drawing on recent work (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  15. Kent Johnson & Ernie Lepore (2002). Does Syntax Reveal Semantics? A Case Study of Complex Demonstratives. Noûs 36 (s16):17 - 41.
    Following Aristotle (who himself was following Parmenides), philosophers have appealed to the distributional reflexes of expressions in determining their semantic status, and ultimately, the nature of the extra-linguistic world. This methodology has been practiced throughout the history of philosophy; it was clarified and made popular by the likes of Zeno Vendler and J.L. Austin, and is realized today in the toolbox of linguistically minded philosophers. Studying the syntax of natural language was fueled by the belief that there is a conceptually (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  16. Jeffrey C. King (2008). Complex Demonstratives, QI Uses, and Direct Reference. Philosophical Review 117 (1):99-117.
    result from combining the determiners `this' or `that' with syntactically simple or complex common noun phrases such as `woman' or `woman who is taking her skis off'. Thus, `this woman', and `that woman who is taking her skis off' are complex demonstratives. There are also plural complex demonstratives such as `these skis' and `those snowboarders smoking by the gondola'. My book Complex Demonstratives: A Quantificational Account argues against what I call the direct reference account of complex demonstratives (henceforth DRCD) and (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  17. Jeffrey C. King (2008). Complex Demonstratives as Quantifiers: Objections and Replies. Philosophical Studies 141 (2):209 - 242.
    In “Complex Demonstratives: A Quantificational Account” (MIT Press 2001) (henceforth CD), I argued that complex demonstratives are quantifiers. Many philosophers had held that demonstratives, both simple and complex, are referring terms. Since the publication of CD various objections to the account of complex demonstratives I defended in it have been raised. In the present work, I lay out these objections and respond to them.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  18. Jeffrey C. King (2001). Complex Demonstratives: A Quantificational Account. Mit Press.
    A challenge to the orthodoxy, which shows that quantificational accounts are not only as effective as direct reference accounts but also handle a wider range of ...
    Remove from this list |
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  19. Ernest Lepore (2002). Does Syntax Reveal Semantics?: A Case Study of Complex Demonstratives. Philosophical Perspectives 16:17--41.
    Following Aristotle (who himself was following Parmenides), philosophers have appealed to the distributional reflexes of expressions in determining their semantic status, and ultimately, the nature of the extra-linguistic world. This methodology has been practiced throughout the history of philosophy; it was clarified and made popular by the likes of Zeno Vendler and J.L. Austin, and is realized today in the toolbox of linguistically minded philosophers. Studying the syntax of natural language was fueled by the belief that there is a conceptually (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  20. Ernest Lepore & Kirk Ludwig (2000). The Semantics and Pragmatics of Complex Demonstratives. Mind 109 (434):199-240.
    Complex demonstratives, expressions of the form 'That F', 'These Fs', etc., have traditionally been taken to be referring terms. Yet they exhibit many of the features of quantified noun phrases. This has led some philosophers to suggest that demonstrative determiners are a special kind of quantifier, which can be paraphrased using a context sensitive definite description. Both these views contain elements of the truth, though each is mistaken. We advance a novel account of the semantic form of complex demonstratives that (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (9 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  21. Kirk Ludwig (2000). The Semantics and Pragmatics of Complex Demonstratives. Mind 109 (434):199 - 240.
    Complex demonstratives, expressions of the form "That F, "These Fs", etc., have traditionally been taken to be referring terms. Yet they exhibit many of the features of quantified noun phrases. This has led some philosophers to suggest that demonstrative determiners are a special kind of quantifier, which can be paraphrased using a context sensitive definite description. Both these views contain elements of the truth, though each is mistaken. We advance a novel account of the semantic form of complex demonstratives that (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  22. Anne Newstead (2003). Singling Out Objects Without Sortals. In Slezak Peter (ed.), International Conference on Cognitive Science (ICCS).
    It is argued that there are ways of individuating the objects of perception without using sortal concepts. The result is an moderate anti-sortalist position on which one can single out objects using demonstrative expressions without knowing exactly what sort of thing those objects are.
    Remove from this list |
    Translate to English
    | Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  23. A. P. G. Palma (2004). Around Indexicals. Iyyun 2004:45-68.
    considerations are given about the state of quantificational views about terms that were to involve the metacognitive ability of self deixis.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  24. Carlo Penco (2013). Indexicals as Demonstratives: On the Debate Between Kripke and Künne. Grazer Philosophische Studien 88.
    This paper is a comparison of Kripke’s and Künne’s interpretations of Frege’s theory of indexicals, especially concerning Frege’s remarks on time as “part of the expression of thought”. I analyze the most contrasting features of Kripke’s and Künne’s interpretations of Frege’s remarks on indexicals. Subsequently, I try to identify a common ground between Kripke’s and Künne’s interpretations, and hint at a possible convergence between those two views, stressing the importance given by Frege to nonverbal signs in defining the content of (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  25. Michael Pendlebury (2001). On the Semantics of Simple and Complex Demonstratives in English. Southern Journal of Philosophy 39 (4):487-505.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  26. Stefano Predelli (2001). Complex Demonstratives and Anaphora. Analysis 61 (1):53–59.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (9 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  27. Simon Prosser (2005). Cognitive Dynamics and Indexicals. Mind and Language 20 (4):369–391.
    Frege held that indexical thoughts could be retained through changes of context that required a change of indexical term. I argue that Frege was partially right in that a singular mode of presentation can be retained through changes of indexical. There must, however, be a further mode of presentation that changes when the indexical term changes. This suggests that indexicals should be regarded as complex demonstratives; a change of indexical term is like a change between 'that φ' and 'that ψ', (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  28. Craige Roberts (2002). Demonstratives as Definites. In K. van Deemter & R. Kibble (eds.), Information Sharing: Reference and Presupposition in Language Generation and Interpretation. CSLI Press. 89-196.
  29. Jason Staley (2002). Complex Demonstratives. Philosophical Review 111 (4):605-609.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  30. J. Stanley (2002). Complex Demonstratives: A Quantificational Account. Philosophical Review 111 (4):605-609.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  31. Eric Swanson, Pronouns and Complex Demonstratives.
    Until recently it was standard to think that all demonstratives are directly referential. This assumption has played important roles in work on perception, reference, mental content, and the nature of propositions. But Jeff King claims that demonstratives with a nominal complement (like ‘that dog’) are quantifiers, largely because there are cases in which the semantic value of such a “complex demonstrative” is not simply an object (2001). Although I agree with King that such cases preclude a directly referential, Kaplanian semantics (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  32. Richard Vallée (2005). Complex Demonstratives, Articulation, and Overarticulation. Dialogue 44 (1):97-121.
    Complex demonstratives raise problems in semantics and force a re-examination of basic principles underlying the New Theory of Reference. First, I present these problems and the relevant principles. Then, I explore the most common suggestions, for instance, as those put forward by Braun and Dever. Finally, I introduce my own view. The latter is a non-ad hoc extension of the Reflexive-Referential analysis of context-sensitive terms as discussed by Perry. It accounts for familiar problems, including those raised by the fact that (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation