Philosophical Studies

, Volume 164, Issue 2, pp 393–404 | Cite as

Monsters in Kaplan’s logic of demonstratives

Article

Abstract

Kaplan (1989a) insists that natural languages do not contain displacing devices that operate on character—such displacing devices are called monsters. This thesis has recently faced various empirical challenges (e.g., Schlenker 2003; Anand and Nevins 2004). In this note, the thesis is challenged on grounds of a more theoretical nature. It is argued that the standard compositional semantics of variable binding employs monstrous operations. As a dramatic first example, Kaplan’s formal language, the Logic of Demonstratives, is shown to contain monsters. For similar reasons, the orthodox lambda-calculus-based semantics for variable binding is argued to be monstrous. This technical point promises to provide some far-reaching implications for our understanding of semantic theory and content. The theoretical upshot of the discussion is at least threefold: (i) the Kaplanian thesis that “directly referential” terms are not shiftable/bindable is unmotivated, (ii) since monsters operate on something distinct from the assertoric content of their operands, we must distinguish ingredient sense from assertoric content (cf. Dummett 1973; Evans 1979; Stanley 1997), and (iii) since the case of variable binding provides a paradigm of semantic shift that differs from the other types, it is plausible to think that indexicals—which are standardly treated by means of the assignment function—might undergo the same kind of shift.

Keywords

Monsters Variables Binding Quantifiers Lambda binders Logic of demonstratives Direct reference Assignment function Ingredient sense What is said Bound pronouns Semantics Compositionality Kaplan 

References

  1. Anand, P., & Nevins, A. (2004). Shifty operators in changing contexts. Proceedings of SALT, 14, 20–37.Google Scholar
  2. Cumming, S. (2008). Variablism. Philosophical Review, 117(4), 605–631.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Dummett, M. (1973). Frege: Philosophy of language. London: Gerald Duckworth.Google Scholar
  4. Evans, G. (1979). Reference and contingency. The Monist, 62, 161–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Heim, I., & Kratzer, A. (1998). Semantics in generative grammar. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
  6. Kaplan, D. (1989a). Demonstratives. In J. Almog, J. Perry, & H. Wettstein (Eds.), Themes from Kaplan (pp. 481–563). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Kaplan, D. (1989b). Afterthoughts. In J. Almog, J. Perry, & H. Wettstein (Eds.), Themes from Kaplan (pp. 565–614). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Ninan, D. (2010). Semantics and the objects of assertion. Linguistics and Philosophy, 33(5), 335–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Pagin, P., & Westerståhl, D. (2010). Compositionality I: Definitions and Variants. Philosophy Compass, 5(3), 250–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Partee, B. (1989). Binding implicit variables in quantified contexts, Proceedings of the Chicago Linguistics Society, Vol. 25, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. 342–365.Google Scholar
  11. Rabern, B.: forthcoming, Against the identification of assertoric content with compositional value, Synthese.Google Scholar
  12. Salmon, N. (1986). Frege’s puzzle. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  13. Santorio, P. (2010). Modals are monsters: on indexical shift in english. Proceedings of SALT, 20, 289–308.Google Scholar
  14. Schlenker, P. (2003). A plea for monsters. Linguistics and Philosophy, 26(1), 29–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Stanley, J. (1997). Rigidity and content. In R. Heck (Ed.), Language, thought, and logic: Essays in honor of Michael Dummett (pp. 131–156). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Stanley, J. (2000). Context and logical form. Linguistics and Philosophy, 23(4), 391–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Stanley, J. (2002). Modality and what is said. Nous, 36(s16), 321–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Tarski, A. (1936). Der Wahrheitsbegriff in den formalisierten Sprachen. Studia Philosophica, 1(4), 261–405.Google Scholar
  19. Westerståhl, D. (forthcoming). Compositionality in Kaplan style semantics. In M. Werning, W. Hinzen, & E. Machery (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Compositionality, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Zimmerman, T. E. (1991). Kontextabhängigkeit. In A. von Stechow & D. Wunderlich (Eds.), Semantik: Ein internationales Handbuch der zeitgenössischen Forschung (pp. 151–229). Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The Australian National UniversityCanberraAustralia

Personalised recommendations