Abstract
What is it for a predicate or a general term to be a rigid designator? Two strategies for answering this question can be found in the literature, but both run into severe difficulties. In this paper, it is suggested that proper names and the usual examples of rigid predicates share a semantic feature which does the theoretical work usually attributed to rigidity. This feature cannot be equated with rigidity, but in the case of singular terms this feature entails their rigidity, as understood in the standard characterisation. Hence, it is appropriate to call this feature proto-rigidity.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
J. Brown (1998) ArticleTitle‘Natural Kind Terms and Recognitional Capacities’ Mind 107 275–303 Occurrence Handle10.1093/mind/107.426.275
M. Devitt K. Sterelny (1999) Language and Reality EditionNumber2 MIT Press Cambridge
K. Donnellan (1983) ‘Kripke and Putnam on Natural Kind Terms’ Ginet Shoemaker (Eds) Knowledge and Mind Oxford University Press New York 84–104
F. Jackson (1998) ArticleTitle‘Reference and Description Revisited’ Philosophical Perspectives 12 201–218
S. Kripke (1980) Naming and Necessity Harvard University Press Cambridge
J. LaPorte (2000) ArticleTitle‘Rigidity and Kind’ Philosophical Studies 97 293–316 Occurrence Handle10.1023/A:1018360026223
D. Lewis (1986) On the Plurality of Worlds Basil Blackwell Oxford
López de Sa, D. (2001). ‘Theoretical Identifications and Rigidity for Predicates’, in Sagüillo and Miguel (eds.), Formal Theories and Empirical Theories, Santiago de Compostela, pp. 611–622.
F. Mondadori (1978) ‘Interpreting Modal Semantics’ Guenther Rohrer (Eds) Studies in Formal Semantics. North Holland Publishing Co. Amsterdam 13–40
Putnam, H.: 1975, ‘The Meaning of “Meaning’”, in Philosophical Papers 2: Mind, Language and Reality, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 215–271.
Schnieder, B. S.: forthcoming, ‘Property Designators, Predicates, and Rigidity’, Philosophical Studies.
S. P. Schwartz (2002) ArticleTitle‘Kinds, General Terms, and Rigidity: A Reply to LaPorte’ Philosophical Studies 109 265–277 Occurrence Handle10.1023/A:1019612524792
A. Sidelle (1992) ArticleTitle‘Rigidity, Ontology, and Semantic Structure’ Journal of Philosophy 89 410–430 Occurrence Handle10.2307/2940742
S. Soames (2002) Beyond Rigidity: The Unfinished Semantic Agenda of Naming and Necessity Oxford University Press New York
C. Wright (1999) ArticleTitle‘Why Frege Did Not Deserve His Granum Salis’ Grazer Philosophische Studien 55 239–263
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
*Earlier versions of this paper were presented at the University of Turku, at the 3rd Barcelona Workshop on Issues in the Theory of Reference: General Terms, and at the Joint Session of the Mind Association and Aristotelian Society at Queen’s University, Belfast, all in 2003. I am grateful to the audiences for discussion. I also want to thank John Biro, Arto Repo, an anonymous referee, and especially Dan Lopez de Sa for helpful comments on earlier written versions. This work has been financially supported by the Academy of Finland (projects 52379 & 202513).
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Haukioja, J. Proto-Rigidity*. Synthese 150, 155–169 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-004-6263-x
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-004-6263-x