Advertisement

Linguistics and Philosophy

, Volume 37, Issue 5, pp 409–436 | Cite as

Demonstratives without rigidity or ambiguity (penultimate draft)

  • Ethan Nowak
Research Article
  • 338 Downloads

Abstract

Most philosophers recognize that applying the standard semantics for complex demonstratives to non-deictic instances results in truth conditions that are anomalous, at best. This fact has generated little concern, however, since most philosophers treat non-deictic demonstratives as marginal cases, and believe that they should be analyzed using a distinct semantic mechanism. In this paper, I argue that non-deictic demonstratives cannot be written off; they are widespread in English and foreign languages, and must be treated using the same semantic machinery that is applied to deictic instances.

Keywords

Demonstratives Complex demonstratives Semantics Direct Reference Rigidity Pronouns 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Adger D. (2003) Core syntax. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  2. Anthony, L. (2013, September 5). Academia’s fog of male anxiety. The New York Times.Google Scholar
  3. Borg E. (2000) Complex demonstratives. Philosohpical Studies 97: 229–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Braun D. (2008) Complex demonstratives and their singular contents. Linguistics and Philosophy 31(1): 57–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Carnie A. (2002) Syntax: A generative introduction. Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  6. Chierchia G., McConnell-Ginet S. (2000) Meaning and grammar. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  7. Comorovski, I. (2007). Existence: Semantics and syntax. In I. Comorovksi & K. von Heusinger (Eds.), Syntax and semantics (Vol. 9, pp. 49–78). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  8. Corrazza E. (2003) Complex demonstratives qua singular terms. Erkenntnis 59: 263–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dever J. (2001) Complex demonstratives. Linguistics and Philosophy 24(3): 271–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Donellan K. (1966) Reference and definite descriptions. Philosophical Review 75: 281–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Elbourne P. (2005) Situations and individuals. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  12. Elbourne P. (2008) Demonstratives as individual concepts. Linguistics and Philosophy 31(4): 409–466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Georgi, G. (2012). Reference and ambiguity in complex demonstratives. In W. P. Kabasenche, M. O’Rourke, & M. H. Slater (Eds.), Reference and referring (pp. 357–384). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  14. Gundel J. K., Hedberg N., Zacharski R. (1993) Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse. Language 69: 274–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Heim I., Kratzer A. (1998) Semantics in generative grammar. Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  16. Kaplan, D. (1977/1989). Demonstratives. In J. Almong, J. Perry, & H. Wettstein (Eds.), Themes from Kaplan (pp. 481–563). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Kaplan, D. (1989). Afterthoughts. In J. Almong, J. Perry, & H. Wettstein (Eds.), Themes from Kaplan (pp. 565–614). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  18. King J. C. (1999) Are complex ‘that’ phrases devices of direct reference?. Noûs 33(2): 155–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. King J. C. (2001) Complex demonstratives: A quantificational account. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  20. King J. C. (2008) Complex demonstratives, QI uses, and direct reference. Philosophical Review 117(1): 99–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lepore E., Ludwig K. (2000) The semantics and pragmatics of complex demonstratives. Mind 109: 199–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mazur, R. (2013, January 2). How to halt the terrorist money train. The New York Times.Google Scholar
  23. Neale S. (1993) Term limits. Philosophical Perspectives 7: 89–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Nowak, E. (in preparation). Demonstratives, hidden arguments, and presupposition.Google Scholar
  25. Nunberg G. (1993) Indexicality and deixis. Linguistics and Philosophy 16(1): 1–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Roberts, C. (2002). Demonstratives as definites. In K. van Deemter & R. Kibble (Eds.), Information sharing. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
  27. Salmon N. (2002) Demonstrating and necessity. Philosophical Review 111(4): 497–537CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Salmon N. (2006) Terms in bondage. Philosophical Issues 16: 263–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Salmon N. (2008) That F. Philosophical Studies 141: 263–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Wolter, L. (2006). That’s that; the semantics and pragmatics of demonstrative noun phrases. PhD thesis, University of California at Santa Cruz.Google Scholar
  31. Yalcin, S. (2014). Semantics and metasemantics in the context of generative grammar. In A. Burgess & B. Sherman (Eds.), Metasemantics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of CaliforniaBerkeleyUSA

Personalised recommendations