An unjustly neglected theory of semantic reference

IF 1.1 1区 哲学 0 PHILOSOPHY PHILOSOPHICAL STUDIES Pub Date : 2024-05-10 DOI:10.1007/s11098-024-02139-1
J. P. Smit
{"title":"An unjustly neglected theory of semantic reference","authors":"J. P. Smit","doi":"10.1007/s11098-024-02139-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>There is a simple, intuitive theory of the semantic reference of proper names that has been unjustly neglected. This is the view that semantic reference is <i>conventionalized speakers reference</i>, i.e. the view that a name semantically refers to an object if, and only if, there exists a convention to use the name to speaker-refer to that object. The theory can be found in works dealing primarily with other issues (e.g. Stine in <i>Philos Stud</i> 33:319–337, 1977; Schiffer in <i>Erkenntnis</i> 13:171–206, 1978; Sainsbury in <i>Erkenntnis</i> 80:195–214, 2015; Sainsbury, <i>Thinking about things</i>, Oxford University Press, 2018), yet these authors provide no sustained discussion of it. Devitt (<i>Designation</i>, Columbia University Press, 1981) did formulate a view on which semantic reference is conventionalized speaker’s reference, yet his views are assimilated to causalist views. This is a mistake. While the conventionalized speaker’s reference view captures much of what is plausible in descriptivism and causalism, it remains distinct from both.</p>","PeriodicalId":48305,"journal":{"name":"PHILOSOPHICAL STUDIES","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PHILOSOPHICAL STUDIES","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-024-02139-1","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

There is a simple, intuitive theory of the semantic reference of proper names that has been unjustly neglected. This is the view that semantic reference is conventionalized speakers reference, i.e. the view that a name semantically refers to an object if, and only if, there exists a convention to use the name to speaker-refer to that object. The theory can be found in works dealing primarily with other issues (e.g. Stine in Philos Stud 33:319–337, 1977; Schiffer in Erkenntnis 13:171–206, 1978; Sainsbury in Erkenntnis 80:195–214, 2015; Sainsbury, Thinking about things, Oxford University Press, 2018), yet these authors provide no sustained discussion of it. Devitt (Designation, Columbia University Press, 1981) did formulate a view on which semantic reference is conventionalized speaker’s reference, yet his views are assimilated to causalist views. This is a mistake. While the conventionalized speaker’s reference view captures much of what is plausible in descriptivism and causalism, it remains distinct from both.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
被不公正地忽视的语义指称理论
关于专有名词的语义指称,有一种简单直观的理论被不公平地忽视了。这种观点认为,语义指称就是约定俗成的说话者指称,也就是说,当且仅当存在一种约定俗成的使用名称的说话者指称对象时,名称在语义上才指称该对象。这一理论可以在主要涉及其他问题的著作中找到(如 Stine in Philos Stud 33:319-337, 1977; Schiffer in Erkenntnis 13:171-206, 1978; Sainsbury in Erkenntnis 80:195-214, 2015; Sainsbury, Thinking about things, Oxford University Press, 2018),然而这些作者并没有对其进行持续的讨论。德维特(Devitt,《指称》,哥伦比亚大学出版社,1981 年)确实提出了一种观点,即语义指称是约定俗成的说话者指称,然而他的观点却被同化为因果论观点。这是一个错误。虽然约定俗成的说话者参照观点捕捉到了描述主义和因果主义中的许多合理之处,但它仍然有别于这两种观点。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
PHILOSOPHICAL STUDIES
PHILOSOPHICAL STUDIES PHILOSOPHY-
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
7.70%
发文量
127
期刊介绍: Philosophical Studies was founded in 1950 by Herbert Feigl and Wilfrid Sellars to provide a periodical dedicated to work in analytic philosophy. The journal remains devoted to the publication of papers in exclusively analytic philosophy. Papers applying formal techniques to philosophical problems are welcome. The principal aim is to publish articles that are models of clarity and precision in dealing with significant philosophical issues. It is intended that readers of the journal will be kept abreast of the central issues and problems of contemporary analytic philosophy. Double-blind review procedure The journal follows a double-blind reviewing procedure. Authors are therefore requested to place their name and affiliation on a separate page. Self-identifying citations and references in the article text should either be avoided or left blank when manuscripts are first submitted. Authors are responsible for reinserting self-identifying citations and references when manuscripts are prepared for final submission.
期刊最新文献
Incommensurability and democratic deliberation in bioethics What Is Rational Sentimentalism? Metaphor and ambiguity Beyond Preferences in AI Alignment What is reasonable doubt? For philosophical studies special issue on Sosa’s ‘epistemic explanations’
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1