Philosophers' Imprint 2 (2):1-33 (2002)
|Abstract||Frege held that referring expressions in general, and demonstratives and indexicals in particular, contribute more than just their reference to what is expressed by utterances of sentences containing them. Heck first attempts to get clear about what the essence of the Fregean view is, arguing that it rests upon a certain conception of linguistic communication that is ultimately indefensible. On the other hand, however, he argues that understanding a demonstrative (or indexical) utterance requires one to think of the object denoted in an appropriate way. This fact makes it difficult to reconcile the view that referring expressions are "directly referential" with any view that seeks (as Grice's does) to ground meaning in facts about communication|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Lynsey Wolter (2009). Demonstratives in Philosophy and Linguistics. Philosophy Compass 4 (3):451-468.
David Braun (1996). Demonstratives and Their Linguistic Meanings. Noûs 30 (2):145-173.
Jeffrey C. King (2008). Complex Demonstratives as Quantifiers: Objections and Replies. Philosophical Studies 141 (2):209 - 242.
Mark Textor (2007). Frege's Theory of Hybrid Proper Names Developed and Defended. Mind 116 (464):947 - 981.
Edward Harcourt (1999). Frege on 'I', 'Now', 'Today' and Some Other Linguistic Devices. Synthese 121 (3):329 - 356.
Ben Caplan (2002). Quotation and Demonstration. Philosophical Studies 111 (1):69-80.
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.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads90 ( #7,758 of 549,128 )
Recent downloads (6 months)10 ( #6,862 of 549,128 )
How can I increase my downloads?