Abstract
Gareth Evans' proposal, as amended by Steven Neale –that a definite pronoun with a quantifiedantecedent that does not bind it has the sense ofa definite description – has been challenged inthe singular case by appeal to counter-examplesinvolving failure of the uniqueness condition forthe legitimacy of a singular description. Thischallenge is here extended to the plural.Counter-examples are provided by cases in which aplural description `the Fs' does not denote,despite the propriety of the use of `they' or`them' it is to replace, because of failure ofcumulativeness. A noncumulative predicate isnot distributive, and conditions for thelegitimacy of `the Fs' designed to accommodatenondistributive `Fs' are given in the context ofa two sorted theory with generalized quantifiers.Failure of cumulativeness is not to be confusedwith failure of maximality as Neale and othersdefine it. If not all Fs are Gs, `The Fs are Gs'is false; but it does not follow that `the Fs' isillegitimate; and if `Fs' is distributive. it isso only if there are no Fs. These differencesgranted, I give a partial defense of theEvans–Neale proposal from deficiencies in analternative based on the views of P. T.Geach.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Boolos, G.: 1984a, 'To Be Is to Be the Value of a Variable (or Some Values of Some Variables)', Journal of Philosophy 81, 430–449.
Boolos, G.: 1985a, 'Nominalistic Platonism', Philosophical Review 94, 327–344.
Boolos, G.: 1985b, 'Reading the Begriffeschrift', Mind 94, 331–344.
Cartwright, H. M.: 1975a, 'Some Remarks about Mass Nouns and Plurality', Synthese 31, 395–410. Reprinted in Pelletier, F. J. (ed.): 1979, Mass Terms: Some philosophical Problems, Reidel, Dordrecht, pp. 31-46.
Cartwright, H. M.: 1993, 'On Plural Reference and Elementary Set Theory', Synthese 96, 201–254.
Cartwright, H. M.: 1996, 'Some of a Plurality', in Philosophical Perspectives 10, Metaphysics, Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 137–157.
Davies, M.: 1981, Meaning, Quantification, Necessity, Routledge, London.
Evans, G.: 1977a, 'Pronouns, Quantifiers and Relative Clauses (I)', Canadian Journal of Philosophy 7, 467–536. Reprinted in Evans 1985, pp. 76-152.
Evans, G.: 1977b, 'Pronouns, Quantifiers and Relative Clauses (II)', Canadian Journal of Philosophy 7, 777–797. Reprinted in Evans 1985, pp. 153-75.
Evans, G.: 1980, 'Pronouns', Linguistic Inquiry 11, 337–362. Reprinted in Evans 1985, pp. 214-248.
Evans, G.: 1985, Collected Papers, Clarendon Press, Oxford.
Gardenförs, Peter (ed.): 1987, Generalized Quantifiers, Reidel, Dordrecht.
Jackendoff, R.: 1977, X Syntax: A Study of Phrase Structure, MIT, Cambridge, MA.
Keenan, E. L. and Stavi, J: 1986, 'A Semantic Characterization of Natural Language Determiners', Linguistics and Philosophy 9, 253–326.
Ludlow, P. and Neale, S: 1991, 'Indefinite Descriptions: In Defense of Russell', Linguistics and Philosophy 14, 171–202.
Neale, S.: 1990, Descriptions, MIT, Cambridge, MA.
Neale, S.: 1993, 'Grammatical Form, Logical Form, and Incomplete Symbols', in A. D. Irvine and G. A. Wedeking (eds), Russell and Analytic Philosophy, University of Toronto, Toronto, pp. 97–139.
Oliver, A. and Smiley, T. J: 1997, 'The Logic of Plurals', seminar notes, Lent term, Cambridge University, Cambridge.
Quine, W. V.: 1960, Word and Object, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Sharvy, R.: 1969, 'Things', The Monist 53, 488–504.
Sharvy, R.: 1980, 'A More General Theory of Definite Descriptions', Philosophical Review 89, 607–624.
Westerstahl, D.: 1989, 'Quantifiers in Formal and Natural Languages', in D. Gabbay and F. Guenthner (eds), Handbook of Philosophical Logic, Volume IV, Reidel, Dordrecht, pp. 1–131.
Wiggins, D: 1980, '“Most” and “All”: Some Comments on a Familiar Programme, and on the Logical Form of Quantified Sentences', in M. Platts (ed.), Reference, Truth, and Reality, Routledge, London, pp. 318–346.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Cartwright, H.M. A Note on Plural Pronouns. Synthese 123, 227–246 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005205406576
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005205406576