Advertisement

Between singularity and generality: the semantic life of proper names

  • Laura DelgadoEmail author
Article
  • 7 Downloads

Abstract

Although the view that sees proper names as referential singular terms is widely considered orthodoxy, there is a growing popularity to the view that proper names are predicates. This is partly because the orthodoxy faces two anomalies that Predicativism can solve: on the one hand, proper names can have multiple bearers. But multiple bearerhood is (prima facie) a problem to the idea that proper names have just one individual as referent. On the other hand, as Burge (J Philos 70:425–439, 1973) noted, proper names can have predicative uses. But the view that proper names are singular terms arguably does not have the resources to deal with Burge’s cases. In this paper I argue that the Predicate View of proper names is mistaken. I first argue against the syntactic evidence used to support the view and against the predicativist’s methodology of inferring a semantic account for proper names based on incomplete syntactic data. I also show that Predicativism can neither explain the behaviour of proper names in full generality, nor claim the fundamentality of predicative names. In developing my own view, however, I accept the insight that proper names in some sense express generality. Hence I propose that proper names—albeit fundamentally singular referential terms—express generality in two senses. First, by being used as predicates, since then they are true of many individuals; and second, by being referentially related to many individuals. I respond to the problem of multiple bearerhood by proposing that proper names are polyreferential, and also explain the behaviour of proper names in light of the wider phenomenon I called category change, and show how Polyreferentialism can account for all uses of proper names.

Keywords

Proper names Reference Predicativism Predicates Polyreferentialism Category change Philosophy of language 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

Acknowledgements

I’m especially indebted to Manuel García-Carpintero, Ofra Magidor, and Elia Zardini, for invaluable comments and discussion on several drafts of this paper. I would also like to thank Robin Jeshion, Claudia Picazo, Ricardo Santos, David Yates, and an anonymous referee for comments and discussion that helped me to improve this paper significantly. Different parts of the material in the paper have been presented in 2013 at the LOGOS Seminar (University of Barcelona) and at the 7th meeting of the Spanish Society for Analytic Philosophy (SEFA 2013); in 2016 at the IIF-SADAF Seminar (University of Buenos Aires), at the Metaphysics, Epistemology, Logic and Language Seminar (University of Lisbon), and at the LanCog Seminar (University of Lisbon); in 2017 at the workshop ‘Entia et Nomina 2017’ in Goa, India, at the PLM Conference (Ruhr University Bochum), and at the St Andrews Graduate Conference (University of St Andrews); in 2018 at the LEME Seminar (Federal University of Rio de Janeiro). I’d like to thank all these audiences for stimulating comments and discussion. I’m also very grateful to all the informants who shared their knowledge of their native languages with me. At different stages during the development of this paper I have benefitted from an AHRC Postgraduate Studentship Award, from a Doctoral Award from the project CONSOLIDER-INGENIO 2010 CSD2009-00056 of the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation on Philosophy of Perspectival Thoughts and Facts (PERSP), and from a Doctoral Award from the programme of grants to new researchers (FI-DGR) of the Catalonian Government.

References

  1. Bauer, L. (1983). English word formation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bauer, L. (2005). Conversion and the notion of lexical category. In L. Bauer & S. Varela (Eds.), Approaches to conversion/zero-derivation (pp. 19–30). Münster; New York: Waxman.Google Scholar
  3. Bauer, L., & Varela, S. (2005). Conversion or Zero-derivation: An Introduction. In L. Bauer & S. Varela (Eds.), Approaches to conversion/zero-derivation (pp. 7–18). Münster; New York: Waxman.Google Scholar
  4. Burge, T. (1973). Reference and proper names. Journal of Philosophy, 70, 425–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cannon, G. (1985). Functional shift in English. Linguistics, 23(3), 411–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Clark, E. V., & Clark, H. H. (1979). When nouns surface as verbs. Language, 55(4), 767–811.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cruse, D. A. (1986). Lexical semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Delgado, L. (2011). Between singularity and generality: The semantic life of proper names. BPhil thesis, University of Oxford.Google Scholar
  9. Delgado, L. (2018a). David, some Davids, and all Davids: Reference, category change, and bearerhood of real-life names. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Barcelona.Google Scholar
  10. Delgado, L. (2018b). Names are not (always) predicates. Ms., University of Barcelona.Google Scholar
  11. Delgado, L. (2018c). Names vs nouns. Ms., University of Barcelona.Google Scholar
  12. Elbourne, P. D. (2005). Situations and individuals. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  13. Falkun, I. L., & Vicente, A. (2015). Polysemy: Current perspectives and approaches. Lingua, 157, 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fara, D. G. (2011). Names as predicates. Ms., Princeton University.Google Scholar
  15. Fara, D. G. (2015a). Literal’ uses of proper names. In A. Bianchi (Ed.), On reference (pp. 251–279). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fara, D. G. (2015b). Names are predicates. Philosophical Review, 124(1), 59–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. García-Carpintero, M. (2017). The Mill-Frege theory of proper names. Mind, fzx010, https://doi.org/10.1093/mind/fzx010.
  18. Gray, A. (2014). Name-bearing, reference and circularity. Philosophical Studies, 171(2), 207–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hanks, P., & Hodges, F. (2003). A dictionary of first names. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Hawthorne, J., & Manley, D. (2012). The reference book. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Higginbotham, J. (1988). Context, models, and meanings: A note on the data of semantics. In R. Kempson (Ed.), Mental representations: The interface between language and reality (pp. 29–48). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Hinzen, W. (2016). Linguistic evidence against predicativism. Philosophy Compass, 11, 591–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hornsby, J. (1976). Proper names: A defence of Burge. Philosophical Studies, 30, 227–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jeshion, R. (2015a). Names not predicates. In A. Bianchi (Ed.), On reference (pp. 225–250). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jeshion, R. (2015b). Referentialism and predicativism about proper names. Erkenntnis, 80(S2), 363–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Jeshion, R. (2017). The’ problem for the-predicativism. Philosophical Review, 126(2), 219–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jeshion, R. (2018). Katherine and the Katherine: On the syntactic distribution of names and count nouns. Theoria, 33(3), 473–508.Google Scholar
  28. Katz, J. (2001). The end of millianism: Multiple bearers, improper names, and compositional meaning. The Journal of Philosophy, 98(3), 137–166.Google Scholar
  29. Krifka, M., Pelletier, F. J., Carlson, G., ter Meulen, A., Chierchia, G., & Link, G. (1995). Genericity: An introduction. In G. Carlson & F. Pelletier (Eds.), The generic book (pp. 1–124). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  30. Larson, R., & Segal, G. (1995). Knowledge of meaning. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  31. Leckie, G. (2013). The double life of names. Philosophical Studies, 165(3), 1139–1160.Google Scholar
  32. Martsa, S. (2013). Conversion in English: A cognitive semantic approach. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
  33. Matushansky, O. (2006). Why Rose is the Rose: On the use of definite articles in proper names. In O. Bonami & P. C. Hofherr (Eds.), Empirical issues in formal syntax and semantics (Vol. 6, pp. 285–308). Paris: CNRS.Google Scholar
  34. Matushansky, O. (2008). On the linguistic complexity of proper names. Linguistics and Philosophy, 31(5), 573–627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Matushansky, O. (2015). The other Francis Bacon: On non-bare proper names. Erkenntnis, 80, 335–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Nunberg, G. (1995). Transfers of meaning. Journal of Semantics, 12, 109–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. OED: Oxford English Dictionary Second edition. (1989). Oxford: Oxford University Press (Online version June 2011).Google Scholar
  38. Pelczar, M., & Rainsbury, J. (1998). The indexical character of names. Synthese, 114(2), 293–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Pennanen, E. V. (1971). Conversion and zero-derivation in English (Acta Universitatis Tamperensis, Series A, Vol. 40). Tampere: University of Tampere.Google Scholar
  40. Perry, J. (2001). Reference and reflexivity. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
  41. Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1985). A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
  42. Rami, D. (2014a). On the unification argument for the Predicate View on proper names. Synthese, 191, 841–862.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Rami, D. (2014b). The use-conditional indexical conception of names. Philosophical Studies, 168, 119–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Rami, D. (2015). The multiple uses of proper nouns. Erkenntnis, 80(S2), 405–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Rami, D. (2016). Names, naming and name-using practices. In P. Stalmaszczyk & L. Fernández Moreno (Eds.), Philosophical approaches to proper names (pp. 55–92). New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  46. Récanati, F. (1993). Direct reference: From language to thought. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  47. Sainsbury, R. M. (2015). The same name. Erkenntnis, 80, 195–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Sawyer, S. (2010). The modified predicate theory of proper names. In Sarah Sawyer (Ed.), New waves in philosophy of language (pp. 206–226). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Schoubye, A. (2017). Type-ambiguous names. Mind, 126, 715–767.Google Scholar
  50. Schoubye, A. (2018). The predicative predicament. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 96(3), 571–595.Google Scholar
  51. Segal, G. (2001). Two theories of names. Mind and Language, 15, 547–563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Sloat, C. (1969). Proper nouns in English. Language, 45(1), 26–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Vendler, Z. (1967). Linguistics in philosophy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  54. Voltolini, A. (1995). Indexinames. In J. Hill & P. Kotatko (Eds.), Karlovy vary studies in reference and meaning (pp. 258–285). Praha: Philosophia Publications.Google Scholar
  55. Zandvoort, R. W. (1965). A handbook of English grammar. London: Longmans, Green & Co.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.LOGOS Research Group, Departament de Lògica, Història i Filosofia de la CiènciaUniversitat de BarcelonaBarcelonaSpain

Personalised recommendations