Linguistics and Philosophy

, 33:325

Understanding proper names

Research Article

Abstract

There is a fairly general consensus that names are Millian (or Russellian) genuine terms, that is, are singular terms whose sole semantic function is to introduce a referent into the propositions expressed by sentences containing the term. This answers the question as to what sort of proposition is expressed by use of sentences containing names. But there is a second serious semantic problem about proper names, that of how the referents of proper names are determined. This is the question that I will discuss in this paper. Various views consistent with Millianism have been proposed as to how the semantic referents of proper names are determined. These views can be classified into (1) description theories and (2) causal theories, but they can also be classified into (3) social practice theories, on which a name’s referent is determined by a social practice involving the referent, and (4) individualistic theories, on which the referent of the use of a name is determined by the speaker’s state of mind. Here I argue against social practice theories of the sorts proposed by Kripke and Evans and in favor of an individualistic approach to name reference. I argue that social practice is irrelevant to determining name reference and that, as a consequence, names have no meanings in natural languages. In the second part of the paper I motivate and propose a new form of individualistic theory which incorporates features of both description theories and Evans’s social practice theory.

Keywords

Proper names Names Reference Anaphora Meaning Semantics 

References

  1. Abbott B. (2002) Definites and proper names: Some bad news for the description theory. Journal of Semantics 19: 203–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abbott B. (2004) Proper names and language. In: Carlson G.N., Pelletier F.J. (eds) Reference and quantification: The Partee effect. CSLI Publications, Stanford, pp 63–82Google Scholar
  3. Almog J. (1984) Semantical anthropology. Midwest Studies in Philosophy 9: 479–490CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bach K. (1987) Thought and reference. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  5. Bach, K. (2002). Georgione was so-called because of his name. Philosophical Perspectives, 16, Language and Mind, 73–103.Google Scholar
  6. Berger A. (2002) Terms and truth. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  7. Burge T. (1973) Reference and proper names. Journal of Philosophy 70: 183–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Davies M. (1981) Meaning, quantification, necessity: Themes in philosophical logic. Routledge & Kegan Paul, LondonGoogle Scholar
  9. Devitt M. (1974) Singular terms. Journal of Philosophy 71: 183–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Devitt M. (1981) Designation. Columbia University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  11. Donnellan K.S. (1970) Proper names and identifying descriptions. Synthese 21: 335–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Donnellan K.S. (1974) Speaking of nothing. The Philosophical Review 83: 3–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Elbourne P. (2005) Situations and Individuals. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  14. Evans, Gareth (1973/1977). The causal theory of names. In S. Schwartz (Ed.), Naming, necessity and natural kinds. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Evans G. (1977) Pronouns, quantifiers, and relative clauses (I). Canadian Journal of Philosophy 7: 467–536Google Scholar
  16. Evans G. (1979) Reference and contingency. Monist 69: 161–189Google Scholar
  17. Evans G. (1982) Varieties of reference. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  18. Geach P.T. (1967) Intentional identity. Journal of Philosophy 64: 627–632CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Geurts B. (1997) Good news about the description theory of names. Journal of Semantics 14: 319–348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Grice, P. (1968/1989). Utterer’s meaning, sentence-meaning, and word-meaning. In P. Grice (Ed.), Studies in the way of words (pp. 117–137). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Heim I. (1990) E-type pronouns and donkey anaphora. Linguistics and Philosophy 13: 137–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Justice J. (2001) On sense and reflexivity. Journal of Philosophy 98: 355–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kaplan D. (1969) Quantifying in. In: Davidson D., Hintikka J. (eds) Words and objections: Essays on the work of W.V. Quine. D. Reidel, Dordrecht, pp 206–242Google Scholar
  24. Kaplan, D. (1977/1989). Demonstratives. In J. Almog, J. Perry, & H. Wettstein (Eds.), Themes from Kaplan (pp. 481–563). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Kaplan D. (1989) Afterthoughts. In: Almog J., Perry J., Wettstein H. (eds) Themes from Kaplan. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 565–614Google Scholar
  26. Katz J. J. (1994) Names without bearers. Philoosophical Review 103: 1–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Katz J.J. (2001) The end of Millianism. Journal of Philosophy 98: 137–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. King, J. C. (1994). Anaphora and operators. Philosophical Prspectives, 8, Logic and Language, 221–250.Google Scholar
  29. King, J. C. (2004). Context dependent quantifiers and donkey anaphora. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, Supplementary Volume 30, 97–428.Google Scholar
  30. King, J. C. (2010). Anaphora. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Spring, 2010 ed. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/anaphora/.
  31. Kripke S. (1972) Naming and necessity. In: Davidson D., Harman G. (eds) Semantics of natural language. D. Reidel, Dordrecht, pp 253–255Google Scholar
  32. Maier E. (2009) Proper names and indexicals trigger rigid presuppositions. Journal of Semantics 26: 253–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Marcus R.B. (1961) Modalities and intensional languages. Synthese 13: 303–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. McDowell J. (1977) The sense and reference of a proper name. Mind 86: 159–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. McKinsey, M. (1976). The reference of proper names. Dissertation, Indiana University.Google Scholar
  36. McKinsey M. (1978a) Names and intentionality. The Philosophical Review 87: 171–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. McKinsey M. (1978b) Kripke’s objections to description theories of names. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 8: 485–497Google Scholar
  38. McKinsey M. (1981) Causes and intentions: A reply. The Philosophical Review 90: 408–423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. McKinsey M. (1984) Causality and the paradox of names. Midwest Studies in Philosophy 9: 491–515CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. McKinsey M. (1986) Mental anaphora. Synthese 66: 159–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. McKinsey M. (1987) Apriorism in the philosophy of language. Philosophical Studies 52: 1–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. McKinsey M. (1991) The internal basis of meaning. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 72: 143–169Google Scholar
  43. McKinsey, M. (1994). Individuating beliefs. Philosophical Perspectives, 8, Philosophy of Logic and Language, 303–330.Google Scholar
  44. McKinsey M. (1999) The semantics of belief ascriptions. Nous 33: 519–557CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. McKinsey M. (2009) Thought by description. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 78: 83–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Neale S. (1990) Descriptions. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  47. Perry J. (1997) Reflexivity, indexicality, and names. In: Künne W., Newen A., Anduschus M. (eds) Direct reference, indexicality, and propositional attitudes. CSLI Publications, Stanford, pp 3–19Google Scholar
  48. Pollock J.L. (1980) Thinking about an object. Midwest Studies in Philosophy 5: 487–499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Putnam H. (1975) The meaning of ‘meaning’. In: Gundarson K. (Ed.) Minnesota studies in the philosophy of science 7. The University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, pp 131–193Google Scholar
  50. Recanati F. (1993) Direct reference. Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  51. Russell, B. (1918/1964). The philosophy of logical atomism. In R. Marsh (Ed.), Logic and knowledge (pp. 175–282). New York: MacMillan.Google Scholar
  52. Salmon N. (1986) Frege’s Puzzle. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  53. Salmon N. (2006) A theory of bondage. Philosophical Review 115: 415–448CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Searle, J. (1958). Proper names. (reprinted by C. Caton, (Ed.), 1963, from Philosophy and ordinary language (pp. 154–161). Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
  55. Searle, J. (1983/2001). Proper names and intentionality. In A. Martinich (Ed.), The philosophy of language (pp. 308–324). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  56. Sinclair C. (1990) Tracing your scottish ancestors. The Stationery Office, EdinburghGoogle Scholar
  57. Soames, S. (1987/1988). Direct reference, propositional attitudes, and semantic content. In N. Salmon & S. Soames (Eds.), Propositions and attitudes (pp. 197–239). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  58. Soames S. (1989) Review of Collected Papers by Gareth Evans. Journal of Philosophy 86: 141–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Soames S. (2002) Beyond rigidity. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Sosa E. (1970) Propositional attitudes de dicto and de re. Journal of Philosophy 67: 883–896CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Strawson, P. F. (1950/1971). On referring. In J. Rosenberg & C. Travis (Eds.), Readings in the philosophy of language. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  62. Strawson P.F. (1963) Individuals. Anchor Books, Garden City, NYGoogle Scholar
  63. Vendler Z. (1971) Singular terms. In: Steinberg D., Jacobovits L. (eds) Semantics. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  64. Wettstein H. (2004) The magic prism. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Wilson N.L. (1959) Substances without substrata. Review of Metaphysics 12: 521–539Google Scholar
  66. Wittgenstein L. (1953) Philosophical investigations. MacMillan, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  67. Ziff P. (1960) Semantic analysis. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NYGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Wayne State UniversityDetroitUSA

Personalised recommendations