|Abstract||Following Kit Fine (2007), we can say that the de jure pair represent the referent as the same while the second one does not do so. There are roughly three ways of capturing this difference. One could say that de jure coreference between two expression occurrences happen because (a) the occurrences have identical meanings, (b) they have identical syntactic properties, or (c) they enter into a semantic relation not grounded in identity of meaning or syntax. In what follows, I give some reason to think that de jure coreference is not a transitive relation. As a consequence, we can rule out (a) and (b) just on these grounds alone (since identity is a transitive relation). (c) then looks promising. I argue that this gives further support for a relationist semantics along the lines of what Kit Fine has proposed.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Only published papers are available at libraries|
Similar books and articles
Ángel Pinillos (forthcoming). Coreference and Meaning. Philosophical Studies.
Ralf M. Bader (2012). The Non-Transitivity of the Contingent and Occasional Identity Relations. Philosophical Studies 157 (1):141-152.
Barbara Hall Partee (1970). Opacity, Coreference, and Pronouns. Synthese 21 (3-4):359 - 385.
Kerstin Anna Kunz (2010). Variation in English and German Nominal Coreference: A Study of Political Essays. Peter Lang.
Kit Fine (2010). Reply to Lawlor's 'Varieties of Coreference'. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 81 (2):496-501.
Alvin Plantinga (1995). What's The Question? Journal of Philosophical Research 20:19-43.
Robert May (2012). What Frege's Theory of Identity is Not. Thought 1 (1):41-48.
Anna Bjurman Pautz (2008). Fictional Coreference as a Problem for the Pretense Theory. Philosophical Studies 141 (2):147 - 156.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads30 ( #40,805 of 549,007 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,261 of 549,007 )
How can I increase my downloads?