Advertisement

Erkenntnis

, Volume 80, Supplement 2, pp 335–362 | Cite as

The Other Francis Bacon: On Non-BARE Proper Names

  • Ora MatushanskyEmail author
Original Article

Abstract

In this paper I provide novel arguments for the predicative approach to proper names, which claims that argument proper names are definite descriptions containing a naming predicate (the individual called X). I first argue that modified proper names, such as the incomparable Maria Callas or the other Francis Bacon cannot be handled on the hypothesis that argument proper names have no internal structure and uniformly denote entities. I then discuss cases like every Adolf, which would normally be interpreted as every individual named Adolf and show that the predicative approach to proper names can straightforwardly account for the distribution of a detectable naming component in proper names. Finally, I address the issue of proper names used as common nouns (such as a Rembrandt or the new Madonna) and plural proper names (e.g., the Beatles) and demonstrate that they do not form a homogenous group yet can be clearly distinguished on both syntactic and semantic grounds from proper names involving a detectable naming component.

Keywords

Relative Clause Naming Convention Common Noun Definite Article Small Clause 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Abney, S. (1987). The English noun phrase in its sentential aspect, Doctoral dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
  2. Bach, E., & Partee, B. H. (1980). Anaphora and semantic structure. In J. Kreiman & A. E. Ojeda (Eds.), Proceedings of CLS 16. Papers from the Parasession on Pronouns and Anaphora (pp. 1–28). Chicago: Chicago Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
  3. Boër, S. E. (1975). Proper names as predicates. Philosophical Studies, 27, 389–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Burge, T. (1973). Reference and proper names. Journal of Philosophy, 70, 425–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Davis, W. (2005). Nondescriptive meaning and reference. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. De Clercq, K. (2008). Proper names used as common nouns in Belgian Dutch and German. In B. Botma & M. van Koppen (Eds.), Linguistics in the Netherlands (Vol. 25, pp. 63–74). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  7. Delisle, H. H. (1988). Communicative function of contracted prepositional forms in German. The Modern Language Journal, 72, 277–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Donnellan, K. S. (1966). Reference and definite descriptions. The Philosophical Review, 75, 281–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ebert, K. (1971). Referenz, Sprechsituation und die bestimmten Artikel in einem Nordfriesischen Dialekt (Fering), Doctoral dissertation, Christiane-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel.Google Scholar
  10. Elbourne, P. (2002). Situations and individuals, Doctoral dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
  11. Fara, D. G. (2001). Descriptions as predicates. Philosophical Studies, 102, 1–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fara, D. G. (2011). You can call me “stupid”,… just don’t call me stupid. Analysis, 71, 492–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fara, D. G. (to appear). “Literal” uses of proper names. In A. Bianchi (Ed.), On reference. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Gärtner, H.-M. (2004). Naming and economy. In Empirical issues in formal syntax and semantics 5. http://www.cssp.cnrs.fr/eiss5
  15. Gary-Prieur, M.-N. (1991). La modalisation du nom propre. Langue Française, 92, 49–62.Google Scholar
  16. Geurts, B. (1997). Good news about the description theory of names. Journal of Semantics, 14, 319–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gouet, M. (1976). On a class of circumstantial deletion rules. Linguistic Inquiry, 7, 693–697.Google Scholar
  18. Hartmann, D. (1982). Deixis and anaphora in German dialects: The semantics and pragmatics of two definite articles in dialectal varieties. In J. Weissenborn & W. Klein (Eds.), Here and there: Cross-linguistic studies on deixis and demonstration (pp. 187–207). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Heim, I., & Kratzer, A. (1998). Semantics in generative grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  20. Heycock, C. (1995). The internal structure of small clauses: New evidence from inversion. In J. N. Beckman (Ed.), Proceedings of NELS 25, volume 1: Papers from the Main Session. Amherst, MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
  21. Heycock, C., & Kroch, A. (1999). Pseudocleft connectedness: Implications for the LF interface level. Linguistic Inquiry, 30, 365–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hintikka, J. (1986). The semantics of a certain. Linguistic Inquiry, 17, 331–336.Google Scholar
  23. Izumi, Y. (2012). The semantics of proper names and other bare nominals, Doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park.Google Scholar
  24. Jackendoff, R. (1992). Mme. Tussaud meets the binding theory. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 10, 1–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jeshion, R. (to appear). Proper names not predicates. In A. Bianchi (Ed.), On reference. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Jeshion, R. (to appear). A rejoinder to Fara’s “Literal” uses of proper names. In A Bianchi (Ed.), On reference. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Jonasson, K. (1992). Les noms propres métaphoriques: Construction et interprétation. Langue Française, 92, 64–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Jonasson, K. (1994). Le nom propre, constructions et interprétations. Louvain: Duculot.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Jonasson, K. (2005). La modification du nom propre dans une perspective contrastive. Langue Française, 146, 67–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kaplan, D. (1973). Bob and Carol and Ted and Alice. In J. Hintikka (Ed.), Approaches to natural language (pp. 490–518). Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kaplan, D. (1989). Demonstratives: An essay on the semantics, logic, metaphysics, and epistemology of demonstratives and other indexicals. In J. Almog, J. Perry, & H. K. Wettstein (Eds.), Themes from Kaplan (pp. 481–563). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Kaplan, D. (1990). Words. Aristotelian Society Supplement, 64, 93–119.Google Scholar
  33. Kripke, S. (1980). Naming and necessity. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  34. Leckie, G. (2013). The double life of names. Philosophical Studies, 165, 1139–1160.Google Scholar
  35. Lidz, J. (2001). Condition R. Linguistic Inquiry, 32, 123–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Löbner, S. (1985). Definites. Journal of Semantics, 4, 279–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Longobardi, G. (1994). Reference and proper names. Linguistic Inquiry, 25, 609–665.Google Scholar
  38. Maling, J., & Sprouse, R. A. (1995). Structural case, specifier-head relations, and the case of predicate NPs. In H. Haider, S. Olsen, & S. Vikner (Eds.), Studies in comparative Germanic Syntax (pp. 167–186). Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Matushansky, O. (2002a). A beauty of a construction. In L. H. Mikkelsen & C. Potts (Eds.), Proceedings of WCCFL 21 (pp. 264–277). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
  40. Matushansky, O. (2002b). Movement of degree/degree of movement, Doctoral dissertation, MIT. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT, Department of Linguistics and Philosophy, MITWPL.Google Scholar
  41. Matushansky, O. (2005). Call me Ishmael. In E. Maier, C. Bary, & J. Huitink (Eds.), Proceedings of SuB 9 (pp. 226–240). Nijmegen: NCS.Google Scholar
  42. Matushansky, O. (2006a). Call me an ambulance. In L. Bateman & C. Ussery (Eds.), Proceedings of NELS 35 (Vol. 2, pp. 419–434). Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts, GLSA.Google Scholar
  43. Matushansky, O. (2006b). Why rose is the rose. In O. Bonami & P. C. Hofherr (Eds.), Empirical issues in formal syntax and semantics 6, pp. 285–308.Google Scholar
  44. Matushansky, O. (2008). On the linguistic complexity of proper names. Linguistics and Philosophy, 31, 573–627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Noailly, M. (1991). “L’énigmatique Tombouctou”: Nom propre et la position de l’épithète. Langue Française, 92, 104–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Nunberg, G. (1979). The non-uniqueness of semantic solutions: Polysemy. Linguistics and Philosophy, 3, 143–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Nunberg, G. (1995). Transfers of meaning. Journal of Semantics, 12, 109–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Partee, B. H. (1986). Noun phrase interpretation and type-shifting principles. In J. Groenendijk, D. de Jongh, & M. Stokhof (Eds.), Studies in discourse representation theory and the theory of generalized quantifiers. GRASS (pp. 115–143). Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
  49. Partee, B. H. (2003). Privative adjectives: Subsective plus coercion. In R. Bäuerle, U. Reyle, & T. E. Zimmermann (Eds.), Presuppositions and discourse. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  50. Partee, B. H., & Bach, E. (1984). Quantification, pronouns, and VP anaphora. In J. Groenendijk, T. M. V. Janssen, & M. Stokhof (Eds.), Formal methods in the study of language, third Amsterdam Colloquium. Amsterdam: Mathematisch Centrum.Google Scholar
  51. Paul, M. (1994). Young Mozart and the joking Woody Allen. Proper names, individuals and parts. In M. Harvey & L. Santelmann (Eds.), Proceedings of semantics and linguistic theory (SALT) 4 (pp. 268–281). Ithaca, New York: CLC Publications, Department of Linguistics, Cornell University.Google Scholar
  52. Pustejovsky, J. (1995). The generative lexicon. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  53. Rapoport, T. R. (1987). Copular, nominal and small clauses: A study of Israeli Hebrew, Doctoral dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
  54. Recanati, F. (1997). Direct reference: From language to thought. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  55. Reuland, E. (2001). Primitives of binding. Linguistic Inquiry, 32, 439–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Sainsbury, M. (2013). The same name. Ms., University of Texas, Austin.Google Scholar
  57. Salmon, N. (1986). Frege’s puzzle. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  58. Sawyer, S. (2009). The modified predicate theory of proper names. In S. Sawyer (Ed.), New waves in philosophy of language (pp. 206–225). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Schwartz, F. (2009). Two types of definites in natural language, Doctoral dissertation, UMass, Amherst.Google Scholar
  60. Sloat, C. (1969). Proper nouns in English. Language, 45, 26–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Soames, S. (2002). Beyond rigidity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Stowell, T. A. (1991). Determiners in NP and DP. In K. Leffel & D. Bouchard (Eds.), Views on phrase structure (pp. 37–56). Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Thomsen, H. E. (1997). On the proper treatment of proper names. Nordic Journal of Linguistics, 20, 91–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Truswell, R. (2005). Non-restrictive adjective interpretation and association with focus. Oxford Working Papers in Linguistics: Phonetics and Philology, 9, 133–154.Google Scholar
  65. Van Langendonck, W. (2007). Theory and typology of proper names. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. von Heusinger, K., & Wespel, J. (2007). Indefinite proper names and quantification over manifestations. In E. Puig-Waldmüller (Ed.), Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 11 (pp. 332–345). Barcelona: Universitat Pompeu Fabra.Google Scholar
  67. Wee, L. (2006). Proper names and the theory of metaphor. Journal of Linguistics, 42, 355–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Wierzbicka, A. (1988). The semantics of grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.SFL (CNRS/Université Paris-8)ParisFrance
  2. 2.UiL OTS/Utrecht UniversityUtrechtThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations