Demonstratives and their linguistic meanings

Noûs 30 (2):145-173 (1996)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

In this paper, I present a new semantics for demonstratives. Now some may think that David Kaplan (1989a,b) has already given a more than satisfactory semantics for demonstratives, and that there is no need for a new one. But I argue below that Kaplan's theory fails to describe the linguistic meanings of 'that' and other true demonstratives. My argument for this conclusion has nothing to do with cognitive value, belief sentences, or other such contentious matters in semantics and the philosophy of mind. Rather, it appeals to the obvious fact that there can be true utterances of certain sentences containing several occurrences of the same demonstrative (for instance, 'That is taller than that'). My argument can be answered by making a fairly modest revision in Kaplan's theory. But I believe that the resulting revised version of Kaplan's theory ignores or distorts various important semantic features of 'that'. Thus I ultimately argue in favor of a more substantial departure from Kaplan's theory. Perhaps the most remarkable feature of the theory I favor is that it ascribes three distinct sorts of meanings to demonstratives.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 90,221

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-01-28

Downloads
190 (#95,492)

6 months
16 (#108,893)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

David Braun
University at Buffalo

Citations of this work

The Foundations of Two-Dimensional Semantics.David J. Chalmers - 2006 - In Manuel Garcia-Carpintero & Josep Macia (eds.), Two-Dimensional Semantics: Foundations and Applications. Oxford University Press. pp. 55-140.
On sense and intension.David J. Chalmers - 2002 - Philosophical Perspectives 16:135-82.
Type-Ambiguous Names.Anders J. Schoubye - 2017 - Mind 126 (503):715-767.
Do demonstratives have senses?Richard Heck - 2002 - Philosophers' Imprint 2:1-33.
No context, no content, no problem.Ethan Nowak - 2020 - Mind and Language 36 (2):189-220.

View all 53 citations / Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references