Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Why Propositions Might be Sets of Truth-supporting Circumstances

  • Published:
Journal of Philosophical Logic Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Soames (Philos Top 15:44–87, 1987, J Philos Logic 37:267–276, 2008) has argued that propositions cannot be sets of truth-supporting circumstances. This argument is criticized for assuming that various singular terms are directly referential when in fact there are good grounds to doubt this.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Barker, C., & Shan, C. (2008). Donkey anaphora is in-scope binding. Semantics and Pragmatics, 1, 1–42. doi:10.3765/sp.1.1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Barwise, J., & Perry, J. (1983). Situations and attitudes. Cambridge: MIT.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Braun, D. (2006). Names and natural kind terms. In E. Lepore, & B. Smith (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of philosophy of language (pp. 490–515). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Burge, T. (1973). Reference and proper names. The Journal of Philosophy, 70, 425–439.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Büring, D. (2004). Crossover situations. Natural Language Semantics, 12, 23–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Büring, D. (2005). Binding theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Chalmers, D. (2006). Two-dimensional semantics. In E. Lepore, & B. Smith (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of philosophy of language (pp. 574–606). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Chalmers, D. (2007). Propositions and attitude ascriptions: AFregean account. Ms., Australian National University. http://consc.net/papers/propositions.pdf.

  9. Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Cooper, R. (1979). The interpretation of pronouns. In F. Heny, & H. Schnelle (Eds.), Syntax and semantics 10: Selections from the third Gröningen round table (pp. 61–92). New York: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Davies, M. (1981). Meaning, quantification, necessity. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Edelberg, W. (1994). Propositions, circumstances, objects. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 23, 1–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Elbourne, P. (2001). E-type anaphora as NP-deletion. Natural Language Semantics, 9, 241–288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Elbourne, P. (2005). Situations and individuals. Cambridge: MIT.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Elbourne, P. (2008). Demonstratives as individual concepts. Linguistics and Philosophy, 31, 409–466.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Evans, G. (1977). Pronouns, quantifiers and relative clauses (I). Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 7, 467–536.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Frege, G. (1892). Über Sinn und Bedeutung. Zeitschrift für Philosophie und Philosophische Kritik, 100, 25–50.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Geach, P. (1962). Reference and generality. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Geurts, B. (1997). Good news about the description theory of names. Journal of Semantics, 14, 319–348.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Groenendijk, J., & Stokhof, M. (1990). Dynamic Montague grammar. In L. Kálmán, & L. Pólos, Papers from the second symposium on logic and language (pp. 3–48). Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Groenendijk, J., & Stokhof, M. (1991). Dynamic predicate logic. Linguistics and Philosophy, 14, 39–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Heim, I. (1990). E-type pronouns and donkey anaphora. Linguistics and Philosophy, 13, 137–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Heim, I. (1998). Anaphora and semantic interpretation: A reinterpretation of Reinhart’s approach. In U. Sauerland, & O. Percus (Eds.), The interpretive tract. MIT working papers in linguistics (pp. 205–246). Cambridge: MIT.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Jacobson, P. (2000). Paycheck pronouns, Bach-Peters sentences, and variable-free semantics. Natural Language Semantics, 8, 77–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. King, J. (2001). Complex demonstratives. A quantificational account. Cambridge: MIT.

    Google Scholar 

  26. King, J. (2003). Tense, modality and semantic value. Philosophical Perspectives, 17, 195–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Kripke, S. (1980). Naming and necessity. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Montague, R. (1969). On the nature of certain philosophical entities. The Monist, 53, 159–194.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Montague, R. (1973). The proper treatment of quantification in ordinary English. In J. Hintikka, J. Moravcsik, & P. Suppes (Eds.), Approaches to natural language: Proceedings of the 1970 Stanford workshop on grammar and semantics (pp. 221–242). Dordrecht: Reidel.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Neale, S. (1990). Descriptions. Cambridge: MIT.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Nunberg, G. (1993). Indexicality and deixis. Linguistics and Philosophy, 16, 1–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Nunberg, G. (2004). Descriptive indexicals and indexical descriptions. In M. Reimer, & A. Bezuidenhout (Eds.), Descriptions and beyond (pp. 261–279). Oxford: Clarendon.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Recanati, F. (1993). Direct reference. From language to thought. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Recanati, F. (2005). Deixis and anaphora. In Z. G. Szabó (Ed.), Semantics versus pragmatics (pp. 286–316). Oxford: Clarendon.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Roberts, C. (2002). Demonstratives as definites. In K. van Deemterm, & R. Kibble (Eds.), Information sharing: Reference and presupposition in language generation and interpretation (pp. 89-136). Stanford: CSLI.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Russell, B. (1903). The principles of mathematics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Schiffer, S. (1992). Belief ascription. Journal of Philosophy, 89, 499–521.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Soames, S. (1987). Direct reference, propositional attitudes, and semantic content. Philosophical Topics, 15, 44–87.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Soames, S. (2002). Beyond rigidity. The unfinished semantic agenda of Naming and Necessity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Soames, S. (2005). Reference and description. The case against two-dimensionalism. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Soames, S. (2008). Why propositions cannot be sets of truth-supporting circumstances. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 37, 267–276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Stalnaker, R. (1976). Propositions. In A. F. MacKay, & D. D. Merrill (Eds.), Issues in the philosophy of language (pp. 79–91). New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Stalnaker, R. (1978). Assertion. In P. Cole (Ed.), Syntax and semantics 9 (pp. 315–332). New York: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Stanley, J. (1997). Names and rigid designation. In B. Hale, & C. Wright (Eds.), A companion to the philosophy of language (pp. 555–585). Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  45. van Eijck, J., & Kamp, H. (1997). Representing discourse in context. In J. van Benthem, & A. ter Meulen (Eds.), Handbook of logic and language (pp.179–237). Amsterdam: Elsevier and MIT.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Linguistics, Queen Mary, University of London, London, E1 4NS, UK

    Paul Elbourne

Authors
  1. Paul Elbourne
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Paul Elbourne.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Elbourne, P. Why Propositions Might be Sets of Truth-supporting Circumstances. J Philos Logic 39, 101–111 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10992-009-9112-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10992-009-9112-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation