How many bare demonstratives are there in English?

Linguistics and Philosophy 37 (4):291-314 (2014)
Abstract
In order to capture our intuitions about the logical consistency of sentences and the logical validity of arguments, a semantics for a natural language has to allow for the fact that different occurrences of a single bare demonstrative, such as “this”, may refer to different objects. But it is not obvious how to formulate a semantic theory in order to achieve this result. This paper first criticizes several proposals: that we should formulate our semantics as a semantics for tokens, not expressions, Kaplan’s idea that syntax associates a demonstration with each occurrence of a demonstrative, Braun’s idea that a context may specify shifts in context across the evaluation of the expressions in a sentence; and Predelli’s idea that we should countenance different classes of contexts. Finally, a solution is proposed that allows that a natural language persists across the addition of basic lexical items but defines logical properties in terms of language stages. A surprising result is that we do not need to think of demonstratives as taking different referents in different situations
Keywords Bare demonstratives  Context-relativity  Logical validity  David Kaplan
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1007/s10988-014-9156-6
Options
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
Edit this record
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Mark as duplicate
Request removal from index
Revision history
Download options
Our Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 32,564
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library
References found in this work BETA
Themes From Kaplan.Joseph Almog, John Perry & Howard Wettstein (eds.) - 1989 - Oxford University Press, Usa.
Zero Tolerance for Pragmatics.Christopher Gauker - 2008 - Synthese 165 (3):359–371.
Demonstrating and Necessity.Nathan Salmon - 2002 - Philosophical Review 111 (4):497-537.
Putting Things in Contexts.Ben Caplan - 2003 - Philosophical Review 112 (2):191-214.

View all 13 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Add more citations

Similar books and articles
Logic for Languages Containing Referentially Promiscuous Expressions.Geoff Georgi - 2015 - Journal of Philosophical Logic 44 (4):429-451.
Bare-Boned Demonstratives.Stefano Predelli - 2012 - Journal of Philosophical Logic 41 (3):547-562.
Demonstratives in Philosophy and Linguistics.Lynsey Wolter - 2009 - Philosophy Compass 4 (3):451-468.
Complex Demonstratives.Emma Borg - 2000 - Philosophical Studies 97 (2):229-249.
Why Bare Demonstratives Need Not Semantically Refer.J. P. Smit - 2012 - Canadian Journal of Philosophy 42 (1):43-66.
Complex Demonstratives and Their Singular Contents.David Braun - 2008 - Linguistics and Philosophy 31 (1):57-99.
Demonstratives as Individual Concepts.Paul Elbourne - 2008 - Linguistics and Philosophy 31 (4):409-466.
Metaphor and Minimalism.Josef Stern - 2011 - Philosophical Studies 153 (2):273 - 298.
Added to PP index
2014-07-07

Total downloads
82 ( #73,370 of 2,235,779 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
5 ( #122,346 of 2,235,779 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Monthly downloads
My notes
Sign in to use this feature