Conclusion
My immediate conclusion, therefore, is a modest one. I only specifically rule out the semantic convention for definite descriptions in which the semantic referent just is the speaker's referent. In arguing for that I carefully avoided relying on the helpfulness assumption. But I did, implicitly, make use of the following procedure.
In examining a claim that C is the semantic convention (or form of convention) for a term (or class of term), check to see that C is capable of being helpful to the extent that an inspection of cases of successful communication employing that term shows it must be.
My broader moral is that such a procedure should be employed in determining what are our semantic conventions.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Bibliography
Bertolet, R.: 1980, ‘The semantic significance of Donnellan's distinction’, Philosophical Studies 37, pp. 281–288.
Devitt, M.: 1981, ‘Donnellan's distinction’, Midwest Studies in Philosophy 6, pp. 511–524.
Donnellan, K.: 1966, ‘Reference and definite descriptions’, The Philosophical Review 75, pp. 281–304.
Donnellan, K.: 1968, ‘Putting Humpty Dumpty together again’, The Philosophical Review 77, pp. 203–215.
Donnellan, K.: 1978, ‘Speaker reference, descriptions and anaphora’, Syntax and Semantics 9, pp. 47–68.
Kripke, S.: 1977, ‘Speaker's reference and semantic reference’, Midwest Studies in Philosophy 2, pp. 255–276.
Mackay, A. F.: 1968, ‘Mr Donnellan and Humpty Dumpty on referring’, The Philosophical Review 77, pp. 197–202.
Moore, M. J.: 1982, ‘Demonstratives and intentions again’, Philosophical Studies 41, pp. 193–196.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Lumsden, D. Does speaker's reference have semantic relevance?. Philosophical Studies 47, 15–21 (1985). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00355084
Received:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00355084