Graduate studies at Western
Erkenntnis 59 (2):263 - 283 (2003)
|Abstract||In a recent book, Jeffrey King (King 2001) argues that complexdemonstratives, i.e., noun phrases of the form `this/that F, are not singular terms. As such,they are not devices of direct reference contributing the referent to the proposition expressed.In this essay I challenge King's position and show how a direct reference view can handle the datahe proposes in favor of the quantificational account. I argue that when a complex demonstrativecannot be interpreted as a singular term, it is best understood as a case of deferredreference – in which case it should be viewed as an anaphora inheriting its value from a quantifiedterm – or as an emphatic description.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Kent Bach (1987). Thought and Reference. Oxford University Press.
David Braun (2008). Persisting Problems for a Quantificational Theory of Complex Demonstratives. Philosophical Studies 141 (3):243 - 262.
Ernest Lepore & Kirk Ludwig (2000). The Semantics and Pragmatics of Complex Demonstratives. Mind 109 (434):199-240.
Kirk Ludwig (2000). The Semantics and Pragmatics of Complex Demonstratives. Mind 109 (434):199 - 240.
David Braun (2008). Problems for a Quantificational Theory of Complex Demonstratives. Philosophical Studies 140 (3):335 - 358.
Jeffrey C. King (2008). Complex Demonstratives as Quantifiers: Objections and Replies. Philosophical Studies 141 (2):209 - 242.
Jeffrey C. King (2008). Complex Demonstratives, QI Uses, and Direct Reference. Philosophical Review 117 (1):99-117.
David Braun (2008). Complex Demonstratives and Their Singular Contents. Linguistics and Philosophy 31 (1):57-99.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads15 ( #86,288 of 754,610 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,372 of 754,610 )
How can I increase my downloads?