Off-campus access
Using PhilPapers from home?
Click here to configure this browser for off-campus access.
- David Braun (1994). Structured Characters and Complex Demonstratives. Philosophical Studies 74 (2).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 I conclude that we should reject these familiar semantic theories, and accept a semantic theory that includes structured characters among its semantic values.In my reading list | Discuss this article | Edit | Categorize |My bibliography
| Export citation | Other links: ling.rochester.edu springerlink.com | Scholar
Discussion of David Braun, Structured characters and complex demonstratives
Nothing in this forum yet.
Similar books and articles
I argue that the ontological status of fictional characters is determined by the beliefs and practices of those who competently deal with works of literature, and draw out three important consequences of this. First, heavily revisionary theories cannot be considered as ‘discoveries’ about the ‘true nature’ of fictional characters; any acceptable realist theory of fiction must preserve all or most of the common conception of fictional characters. Second, once we note that the existence conditions for fictional characters (established by those (...)
In my reading list
| Discuss this article | Edit | Categorize | My bibliography | Export citation | Other links: bjaesthetics.oxfordjournals.org | Scholar | More..
| | Other links: bjaesthetics.oxfordjournals.org | Scholar | More.. 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.
Statements about fictional characters, such as “Gregor Samsa has been changed into a beetle,” pose the problem of how we can say something true (or false) using empty names. I propose an original solution to this problem that construes such utterances as reports of the “prescriptions to imagine” generated by works of fiction. In particular, I argue that we should construe these utterances as specifying, not what we are supposed to imagine—the propositional object of the imagining—but how we are supposed (...)
This paper discusses the individuation of characters for the use asunits by geneticists at the beginning of the 20th century. Thediscussion involves the Presence and Absence Hypothesis as a case study. It issuggested that the gap between conceptual consideration and etiological factorsof individuating of characters is being handled by way of mutual adjustment.Confrontation of a suggested morphological unit character with experimentresults molded the final boundaries of it.
The Le Quesne test of character compatibility uses pairwise comparisons of characters to detect homoplasy in phylogenetic character data. If a pair of characters fails this test we can conclude that a minimum of a single extra step is required by the pair of characters. The rationale of the Le Quesne test is extended to comparisons of triplets of characters. The triplet homoplasy test can reveal that that there is a minimum of four extra steps across a triplet of characters (...)
An evolutionarily stable strategy (ESS) may apply to characters expressed across species for predation and feeding, because these characters are conservative. However, the evolution of complex, polymorphic behaviors is more difficult to define as an ESS. Lateralization may be selective for certain simple traits, but lateralization of complex traits is likely the result of coadaptation of otherwise non-lateralized features.
No categories
It is argued that taken together, two widely held claims ((i) sentences express structured propositions whose structures are functions of the structures of sentences expressing them; and (ii) senteces have underlying structures that are the input to semantic interpretation) suggest a simple, plausible theory of propositional structure. According to this theory, the structures of propositions are the same as the structures of the syntactic inputs to semantics they are expressed by. The theory is defended against a variety of objections.
Ontological questions in biology have typically focused on the nature of species: what are species; how are they identified and individuated? There is an analogous, but much neglected concern: what are characters; how are they identified and individuated? Character individuation is significant because biological systematics relies on a parsimony principle to determine phylogeny and classify taxa, and the parsimony principle is usually interpreted to favor the phylogenetic hypothesis that requires the fewest changes in characters. But no character individuation principle identified (...)
In my reading list
| Discuss this article | Edit | Categorize | My bibliography | Export citation | Other links: journals.uchicago.edu | Scholar | More..
| | Other links: journals.uchicago.edu | Scholar | More.. The architects of punctuated equilibrium and species selection as well as more recent workers (Vrba) have narrowed the original formulation of species selection and made it dependent upon so-called emergent characters. One criticism of this narrow version is the dearth of emergent characters with a consequent diminution in the robustness of species selection as an important evolutionary process. We argue that monomorphic species characters may at times be the focus of selection and that under these circumstances selection at the organism (...)
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 (...)
