Advertisement

Linguistics and Philosophy

, Volume 42, Issue 2, pp 109–129 | Cite as

Against the speaker-intention theory of demonstratives

  • Christopher GaukerEmail author
Open Access
Article

Abstract

It is commonly supposed that an utterance of a demonstrative, such as “that”, refers to a given object only if the speaker intends it to refer to that object. This paper poses three challenges to this theory. First, the theory threatens to beg the question by defining the content of the speaker’s intention in terms of reference. Second, the theory makes psychologically implausible demands on the speaker. Third, the theory entails that there can be no demonstratives in thought.

Keywords

Demonstratives Reference Speaker’s intention Context-relativity 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Open access funding provided by Paris Lodron University of Salzburg. Versions of this paper were presented at the conference “Conceptual Thought and Linguistic Communication” in Salzburg, May 2016, at the conference "What is Said / What is Meant" in Berlin, September 2016, and at the University of Milan, February 2018. I thank the audiences on those occasions, an anonymous reviewer for this journal and Graeme Forbes, in his capacity as an editor, for their comments and questions.

References

  1. Åkerman, J. (2015). The communication desideratum and theories of indexical reference. Mind and Language, 30, 474–499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. De Bruin, L. C., & Newen, A. (2014). The developmental paradox of false belief understanding: A dual-system solution. Synthese, 191, 297–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Gauker, C. (2008). Zero tolerance for pragmatics. Synthese, 165, 359–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Gauker, C. (2010). Global domains versus hidden indexicals. Journal of Semantics, 27, 243–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Gauker, C. (2012). What Tipper is ready for: A semantics for incomplete predicates. Noûs, 46, 61–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Gauker, C. (2013). Inexplicit thoughts. In L. Goldstein (Ed.), Brevity (pp. 74–90). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gauker, C. (2015). How many bare demonstratives are there in English? Linguistics and Philosophy, 37, 291–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Heck, R. G., Jr. (2014). Semantics and context-dependence: Towards a Strawsonian account. In A. Burgess & B. Sherman (Eds.), Metasemantics: New essays on the foundation of meaning (pp. 327–364). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kaplan, D. (1989). Demonstratives: An essay on the semantics, logic, metaphysics, and epistemology of demonstratives and other indexicals. In J. Almog, J. Perry, & H. Wettstein (Eds.), Themes from Kaplan (pp. 481–564). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. King, J. C. (2014). Speaker intentions in context. Noûs, 48, 219–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Larson, R. K., & Segal, G. M. A. (1995). Knowledge of meaning: An introduction to semantic theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  12. Levine, J. (2010). Demonstrative thought. Mind and Language, 25, 169–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lewerentz, L., & Marschall, B. (2018). Metasemantics, intentions and circularity. Synthese, 195, 1667–1679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Pylyshyn, Z. (2003). Seeing and visualizing: It’s not what you think. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Raftopoulos, A., & Müller, V. C. (2006). Nonconceptual demonstrative reference. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 72, 251–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Scholl, B., & Pylyshyn, Z. (1999). Tracking multiple items through occlusion: Clues to visual objecthood. Cognitive Psychology, 38, 258–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Speaks, J. (2016). The role of speaker and hearer in the character of demonstratives. Mind, 125, 301–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Speaks, J. (2017). A puzzle about demonstratives and semantic competence. Philosophical Studies, 174, 709–734.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Stokke, A. (2010). Intention-sensitive semantics. Synthese, 175, 383–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Wellman, H. M., Cross, D., & Watson, J. (2001). Meta-analysis of theory-of-mind development: The truth about false belief. Child Development, 72, 655–684.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Wettstein, H. (1984). How to bridge the gap between meaning and reference. Synthese, 58, 63–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Philosophy, Faculty of Cultural and Social SciencesUniversity of SalzburgSalzburgAustria

Personalised recommendations