Abstract
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.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bach K. (1987) Thought and reference (revised with postscript). Oxford University Press, Oxford
Bach K. (1995) Standardization vs. conventionalization. Linguistics and Philosophy 18: 677–686
Bach K. (1998) Postscript (1995): Standardization revisited. In: Kasher A.(eds) Pragmatics: Critical concepts (Vol. 4). Routledge, London, pp 712–722
Bach, K. (2004). Descriptions: Points of reference. In Reimer and Bezuidenhout (2004, pp. 189–229).
Bach K. (2007) Referentially used descriptions: A reply to Devitt. European Journal of Analytic Philosophy 8: 33–48
Bach K., Harnish M. (1979) Linguistic communication and speech acts. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
Borg E. (2000) Complex demonstratives. Philosophical Studies 97: 229–249
Braun D. (1993) Empty names. Noûs 27: 449–469
Braun D. (1994) Structured characters and complex demonstratives. Philosophical Studies 74: 193–219
Braun D. (1995) What is character? Journal of Philosophical Logic 24: 227–240
Braun D. (1996) Demonstratives and their linguistic meanings. Noûs 30: 145–173
Braun D. (1998) Understanding belief reports. The Philosophical Review 107: 555–595
Braun D. (2005) Empty names, fictional names, mythical names. Noûs 39: 596–631
Braun, D. (Forthcoming). Problems for a quantificational theory of complex demonstratives. Philosophical Studies.
Corazza E. (2003) Complex demonstratives Qua singular terms. Erkenntnis 59: 263–283
Crimmins M. (1992) Talk about beliefs. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
Davies M. (1982) Individuation and the semantics of demonstratives. Journal of Philosophical Logic 11: 287–310
Dever J. (2001) Complex demonstratives. Linguistics and Philosophy 24: 271–330
Donnellan K. (1979) The contingent A Priori and rigid designators. In: French P., Uehling T., Wettstein H.(eds) Contemporary perspectives in philosophy of language. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis
Evans G. (1977) Pronouns, quantifiers, and relative clauses (I). Canadian Journal of Philosophy 7: 777–797
Evans G. (1980) Pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 11: 337–362
Heim, I. (1982). The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases in English. PhD Thesis, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Jeshion R. (2001) Donnellan on Neptune. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 63: 111–135
Jeshion R. (2002) Acquaintanceless De Re Belief. In: Campell J. K., O’Rourke M., Shier D.(eds) Truth and meaning: Investigations in philosophical semantics. Seven Bridges Press, New York, pp 53–77
Jeshion, R. (2004). Descriptive descriptive names. In Reimer and Bezuidenhout (2004, pp. 591–612).
Kamp, H. (1981). A theory of truth and semantic representation. In J. Groenendijk, T. Janssen, M. Stokhof (Eds.), Formal methods in the study of language. Amsterdam: Mathematical Centre (Reprinted in J. Groenendijk, T. Janssen, & M. Stokhof (Eds.), Truth, representation, and information. Dordrecht: GRASS Series No. 2).
Kamp H., Reyle U. (1993) From discourse to logic. Kluwer, Dordrecht
Kaplan D. (1968) Quantifying In. In: Davidson D., Hintikka J.(eds) Essays on the work of W.V. Quine. Reidel, Dordrecht, pp 178–214
Kaplan D. (1978) Dthat. In: Cole P.(eds) Syntax and semantics (Vol. 9). Academic Press, New York, pp 221–253
Kaplan D. (1989) Demonstratives. In: Almog J., Perry J., Wettstein H.(eds) Themes from Kaplan. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 481–563
Kaplan D. (1989) Afterthoughts. In: Almog J., Perry J., Wettstein H.(eds) Themes from Kaplan. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 565–614
King J. (1987) Pronouns, descriptions and the semantics of discourse. Philosophical Studies 51: 341–363
King J. (2001) Complex demonstratives: A quantificational account. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
King J. (2008) Complex demonstratives, QI uses, and direct reference. The Philosophical Review 117: 99–117
Larson R., Segal G. (1995) Knowledge of meaning. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
Lepore E., Ludwig K. (2000) The semantics and pragmatics of complex demonstratives. Mind 109: 199–240
Lepore E., Johnson K. (2002) Does syntax reveal semantics? A case study of complex demonstratives. Philosophical Perspectives 16: 15–41
Manley, D., & Hawthorne, J. (In progress). Something in mind: Object-dependence in language and thought.
May R. (1985) Logical form: Its structure and derivation. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
McGinn C. (1981) The mechanism of reference. Synthese 49: 156–186
Neale S. (1990) Descriptions. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
Neale S. (1993) Term limits. Philosophical Perspectives 7: 89–123
Neale, S. (2004). This, that, and the other. In Reimer and Bezuidenhout (2004, pp. 68–182).
Neale S. (2007) Heavy hands, magic, and scene-reading traps. European Journal of Analytic Philosophy 3: 77–131
Perry J. (1997). Indexicals and demonstratives. In B. Hale, C. Wright A companion to the philosophy of language. Oxford: Blackwell.
Perry J. (2000) Rip Van Winkle and other characters. In: Perry J.(eds) The problem of the essential indexial, expanded edition. CSLI Publications, Stanford CA, pp 355–376
Recanati F. (1993) Direct reference: From language to thought. Blackwell, Oxford
Reimer, M., Bezuidenhout, A. (eds) (2004) Descriptions and beyond. Oxford University Press, New York
Richard M. (1993) Articulated terms. Philosophical Perspectives 7: 207–230
Salmon N. (1981) Reference and essence. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ
Salmon N. (1986) Frege's puzzle. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
Salmon N. (1987) How to measure the standard meter. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 88: 193–217 (Reprinted in Salmon 2007)
Salmon N. (1998) Nonexistence. Noûs 32: 277–319 (Reprinted in Salmon 2005)
Salmon N. (2002) Demonstrating and necessity. Philosophical Review 111: 497–537 (Reprinted in Salmon 2007)
Salmon, N. (2004). The good, the bad, and the ugly. In Reimer and Bezuidenhout (2004, pp. 230–260) (Reprinted in Salmon 2007).
Salmon N. (2005) Metaphysics, mathematics, and meaning. Oxford University Press, New York
Salmon N. (2006) A theory of bondage. Philosophical Review 115: 415–458 (Reprinted in Salmon 2007)
Salmon N. (2007) Content, cognition, and communication: Philosophical papers (Vol. 2). Oxford University Press, New York
Schiffer S. (1981) Indexicals and the theory of meaning. Synthese 57: 43–100
Soames S. (1998) The modal argument: Wide scope and rigidified descriptions. Noûs 32: 1–22
Soames S. (2002) Beyond rigidity: The unfinished semantic agenda of naming and necessity. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Soames S. (2003) Philosophical analysis in the twentieth century, Vol. 2: The age of meaning. Princeton University Press, Princeton
Soames S. (2005) Reference and description: The case against two-dimensionalism. Princeton University Press, Princeton
Soames S. (2005) Why incomplete descriptions do not defeat Russell's theory of descriptions. Teorema 24: 7–30
Taylor B. (1980) Truth-theory for indexical languages. In: Platts M.(eds) Reference, truth, and reality. Routledge, London, pp 182–183
Wolter, L. (2006). That's that: The semantics and pragmatics of demonstrative noun phrases. PhD dissertation, Linguistics Department, University of California, Santa Cruz.
Wolter, L. (2007). Comments on Jeff King's paper on complex demonstratives. For the Workshop on Complex Demonstratives, Cornell University, April 28, 2007.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Braun, D. Complex demonstratives and their singular contents. Linguist and Philos 31, 57–99 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-008-9032-3
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-008-9032-3