Propositions, semantic values, and rigidity
- 266 Downloads
Jeffrey King has recently argued: (i) that the semantic value of a sentence at a context is (or determines) a function from possible worlds to truth values, and (ii) that this undermines Jason Stanley's argument against the rigidity thesis, the claim that no rigid term has the same content as a non-rigid term. I show that King's main argument for (i) fails, and that Stanley's argument is consistent with the claim that the semantic value of a sentence at a context is (or determines) a function from worlds to truth values.
KeywordsPropositions Operators Quantifiers Tense Modality Rigidity Two-dimensionalism
For helpful comments, thanks to Alejandro Pérez Carballo, Paolo Santorio, Seth Yalcin, and an anonymous referee for Philosophical Studies.
- Kaplan, D. (1989). Demonstratives. In J. Almog, J. Perry, & H. Wettstein (Eds.), Themes from Kaplan (pp. 481−563). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Kusumoto, K. (1999). Tense in embedded contexts. Ph.D. thesis, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
- Lewis, D. K. (1980). Index, context, and content. In S. Kanger, & S. Öhman (Eds.), Philosophy and grammar (pp. 79–100). Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company. (Reprinted from Lewis 1998, pp. 21–44, Page references to are to the 1998 reprint).Google Scholar
- Lewis, D. K. (1998). Papers in philosophical logic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Schlenker, P. (2004). Person and binding (a partial survey). Italian Journal of Linguistics/Rivista di Linguistica, 16(1), 155–218.Google Scholar
- Stanley, J. (1997a). Names and rigid designation. In B. Hale, & C. Wright (Eds.), A companion to philosophy of language. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
- Stanley, J. (1997b). Rigidity and content. In: R. Heck (Ed.), Language, thought, and logic, (pp. 131–156). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Stanley, J. (2002). Modality and what is said. Philosophical Perspectives, 16, 321–344.Google Scholar