Skip to main content
Log in

Complex demonstratives and their singular contents

Linguistics and Philosophy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bach K. (1987) Thought and reference (revised with postscript). Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Bach K. (1995) Standardization vs. conventionalization. Linguistics and Philosophy 18: 677–686

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bach K. (1998) Postscript (1995): Standardization revisited. In: Kasher A.(eds) Pragmatics: Critical concepts (Vol. 4). Routledge, London, pp 712–722

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Bach K., Harnish M. (1979) Linguistic communication and speech acts. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Borg E. (2000) Complex demonstratives. Philosophical Studies 97: 229–249

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braun D. (1993) Empty names. Noûs 27: 449–469

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braun D. (1994) Structured characters and complex demonstratives. Philosophical Studies 74: 193–219

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braun D. (1995) What is character? Journal of Philosophical Logic 24: 227–240

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braun D. (1996) Demonstratives and their linguistic meanings. Noûs 30: 145–173

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braun D. (1998) Understanding belief reports. The Philosophical Review 107: 555–595

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braun D. (2005) Empty names, fictional names, mythical names. Noûs 39: 596–631

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crimmins M. (1992) Talk about beliefs. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Davies M. (1982) Individuation and the semantics of demonstratives. Journal of Philosophical Logic 11: 287–310

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dever J. (2001) Complex demonstratives. Linguistics and Philosophy 24: 271–330

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans G. (1977) Pronouns, quantifiers, and relative clauses (I). Canadian Journal of Philosophy 7: 777–797

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans G. (1980) Pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 11: 337–362

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan D. (1968) Quantifying In. In: Davidson D., Hintikka J.(eds) Essays on the work of W.V. Quine. Reidel, Dordrecht, pp 178–214

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan D. (1978) Dthat. In: Cole P.(eds) Syntax and semantics (Vol. 9). Academic Press, New York, pp 221–253

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan D. (1989) Demonstratives. In: Almog J., Perry J., Wettstein H.(eds) Themes from Kaplan. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 481–563

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan D. (1989) Afterthoughts. In: Almog J., Perry J., Wettstein H.(eds) Themes from Kaplan. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 565–614

    Google Scholar 

  • King J. (1987) Pronouns, descriptions and the semantics of discourse. Philosophical Studies 51: 341–363

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King J. (2001) Complex demonstratives: A quantificational account. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • King J. (2008) Complex demonstratives, QI uses, and direct reference. The Philosophical Review 117: 99–117

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larson R., Segal G. (1995) Knowledge of meaning. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Lepore E., Ludwig K. (2000) The semantics and pragmatics of complex demonstratives. Mind 109: 199–240

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lepore E., Johnson K. (2002) Does syntax reveal semantics? A case study of complex demonstratives. Philosophical Perspectives 16: 15–41

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • McGinn C. (1981) The mechanism of reference. Synthese 49: 156–186

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neale S. (1990) Descriptions. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Neale S. (1993) Term limits. Philosophical Perspectives 7: 89–123

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Recanati F. (1993) Direct reference: From language to thought. Blackwell, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Reimer, M., Bezuidenhout, A. (eds) (2004) Descriptions and beyond. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Richard M. (1993) Articulated terms. Philosophical Perspectives 7: 207–230

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salmon N. (1981) Reference and essence. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  • Salmon N. (1986) Frege's puzzle. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Salmon N. (1987) How to measure the standard meter. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 88: 193–217 (Reprinted in Salmon 2007)

    Google Scholar 

  • Salmon N. (1998) Nonexistence. Noûs 32: 277–319 (Reprinted in Salmon 2005)

    Google Scholar 

  • Salmon N. (2002) Demonstrating and necessity. Philosophical Review 111: 497–537 (Reprinted in Salmon 2007)

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Salmon N. (2006) A theory of bondage. Philosophical Review 115: 415–458 (Reprinted in Salmon 2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salmon N. (2007) Content, cognition, and communication: Philosophical papers (Vol. 2). Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Schiffer S. (1981) Indexicals and the theory of meaning. Synthese 57: 43–100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Soames S. (1998) The modal argument: Wide scope and rigidified descriptions. Noûs 32: 1–22

    Google Scholar 

  • Soames S. (2002) Beyond rigidity: The unfinished semantic agenda of naming and necessity. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Soames S. (2003) Philosophical analysis in the twentieth century, Vol. 2: The age of meaning. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  • Soames S. (2005) Reference and description: The case against two-dimensionalism. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  • Soames S. (2005) Why incomplete descriptions do not defeat Russell's theory of descriptions. Teorema 24: 7–30

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor B. (1980) Truth-theory for indexical languages. In: Platts M.(eds) Reference, truth, and reality. Routledge, London, pp 182–183

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David Braun.

Rights and permissions

Reprints 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

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-008-9032-3

Keywords

Navigation