Philosophical Studies 149 (3):355 - 366 (2010)
|Abstract||In the debate over what determines the reference of an indexical expression on a given occasion of use, we can distinguish between two generic positions. According to the first, the reference is determined by internal factors, such as the speaker’s intentions. According to the second, the reference is determined by external factors, like conventions or what a competent and attentive audience would take the reference to be. It has recently been argued that the first position is untenable, since there are cases of mismatch where the intuitively correct reference differs from the one that would be determined by the relevant internal factors. The aim of this paper is to show that, contrary to this line of argument, it is the proponent of the second position that should be worried, since this position yields counterintuitive consequences regarding communicative success in cases of mismatch.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
H. G. Callaway (1982). Sense, Reference and Purported Reference. Logique Et Analyse 25 (March):93-103.
Kepa Korta (2011). Critical Pragmatics: An Inquiry Into Reference and Communication. Cambridge University Press.
Jonas Åkerman (2009). A Plea for Pragmatics. Synthese 170 (1):155 - 167.
Marga Reimer (1992). Three Views of Demonstrative Reference. Synthese 93 (3):373 - 402.
Kirk A. Ludwig (1993). Direct Reference in Thought and Speech. Communication and Cognition 26 (1):49-76.
Quentin Smith (1989). The Multiple Uses of Indexicals. Synthese 78 (2):167--191.
Eros Corazza (2002). Temporal Indexicals and Temporal Terms. Synthese 130 (3):441 - 460.
K. Romdenh-Romluc (2006). I. Philosophical Studies 128 (2):257 - 283.
Added to index2009-02-16
Total downloads37 ( #36,899 of 722,700 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #60,006 of 722,700 )
How can I increase my downloads?