Graduate studies at Western
Communication and Cognition 26 (1):49-76 (1993)
|Abstract||I want to begin by distinguishing between what I will call a pure Fregean theory of reference and a theory of direct reference. A pure Fregean theory of reference holds that all reference to objects is determined by a sense or content. The kind of theory I have in mind is obviously inspired by Frege, but I will not be concerned with whether it is the theory that Frege himself held.1 A theory of direct reference, as I will understand it, denies that all reference to objects is determined by sense or content. We will also distinguish between a theory of reference for thought, and for language. This gives us a fourfold classification of theories. What is puzzling about direct reference theories is not that the semantics of an expression in a public language should assign as its semantic value just a referent, but how such facts could be understood to reflect an underlying feature of thought. There are two interconnected aspects to this..|
|Keywords||Language Reference Speech Thought|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Mitchell S. Green (1998). Direct Reference and Implicature. Philosophical Studies 91 (1):61-90.
Wolfgang Carl (1994). Frege's Theory of Sense and Reference: Its Origins and Scope. Cambridge University Press.
Saul A. Kripke (2008). Frege's Theory of Sense and Reference: Some Exegetical Notes. Theoria 74 (3):181-218.
Stephen R. Schiffer (2006). A Problem for a Direct-Reference Theory of Belief Reports. Noûs 40 (2):361-368.
Kepa Korta (2011). Critical Pragmatics: An Inquiry Into Reference and Communication. Cambridge University Press.
Kent Bach (1987). Thought and Reference. Oxford University Press.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads43 ( #30,837 of 739,406 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #37,287 of 739,406 )
How can I increase my downloads?