Philosophical Studies

, Volume 174, Issue 11, pp 2819–2843 | Cite as

Russellianism unencumbered

Article
  • 291 Downloads

Abstract

Richard Heck, Jr. has recently (in “Intuition and the substitution argument,” Analytical Philosophy2014) reconfigured the debate over Russellianism about proper names. Sidestepping the usual argument, which concerns “intuitions” about substitutions within “that”-clauses, he proposes a new argument based on the claims that (i) beliefs are individuated by their psychological roles and (ii) ordinary language has belief-specifying locutions that reflect that individuation. Focusing on (ii) I argue that contrary to what Heck claims, “that”-clause ascriptions are not the only candidates. In fact there are much better candidates: ascriptions involving direct quotations. I explain how the proposal is novel (it avoids the usual problems with such ascriptions) and how it answers the requirements of Heck’s argument. More broadly what Heck’s argument brings out is the diversity of resources ordinary language has for specifying beliefs; a defense of Russellianism needn’t rest entirely on claims about “that”-clause ascriptions.

Keywords

Belief ascription Russellianism Quotation 

Notes

Acknowledgements

I’m more than usually grateful to an anonymous referee, who prompted significant improvements to the discussion in § 6.

References

  1. Bach, K. (1999). The myth of conventional implicature. Linguistics and Philosophy, 22, 327–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Berg, J. (1988). The pragmatics of substitutivity. Linguistics and Philosophy, 11, 355–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bigelow, J. (1978). Believing in semantics. Linguistics and Philosophy, 2, 101–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Braun, D. (1998). Understanding belief reports. Philosophical Review, 107, 555–595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cappelen, H., & Lepore, E. (1997). Varieties of quotation. Mind, 106, 429–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Carey, S. (2009). The origin of concepts. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Carnap, R. (1947). Meaning and necessity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  8. Church, A. (1950). On Carnap’s analysis of statements of assertion and belief. Analysis, 10, 97–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Collins, P. (2009). Modals and quasi-modals in English. Amsterdam/New York: Rodopi.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cresswell, M. (1980). Quotational theories of propositional attitudes. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 9, 17–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Crimmins, M. (1992). Talk about beliefs. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  12. Davidson, D. (1968). On saying that. Synthese, 19, 130–146. Reprinted in Inquiries into truth and interpretation (pp. 93–108). Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  13. Davies, M. (2008). The corpus of contemporary American English. Online resource. http://corpus.byu.edu/coca/.
  14. Field, H. (2001). Attributions of meaning and content. In Truth and the absence of fact (pp. 157–174). Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  15. Frege, G. (1892). Über sinn und bedeutung. Zeitschrift für Philosophie und philosophische Kritik 100, 25–50. Translated as On sense and meaning. In P. Geach & M. Black (Eds.), Translations from the philosophical writings of Gottlob Frege (pp. 56–78). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  16. Geach, P. (1967). The identity of propositions. In Logic matters (pp. 166–174). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  17. Geurts, B., & Maier, E. (2003). Quotation in context. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 17, 109–128.Google Scholar
  18. Heck, R. (2012). Solving Frege’s puzzle. Journal of Philosophy, 109, 132–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Heck, R. (2014). Intuition and the substitution argument. Analytic Philosophy, 55, 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Heim, I., & Kratzer, A. (1998). Semantics in generative grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  21. Kratzer, A. (1977). What ‘must’ and ‘can’ must and can mean. Linguistics and Philosophy, 1, 337–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kratzer, A. (1981). The notional category of modality. In H. J. Eikmeyer & H. Rieser (Eds.), Words, worlds, and contexts (pp. 38–74). Berlin and New York: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  23. Kripke, S. (1979). A puzzle about belief. In A. Margalit (Ed), Meaning and use (pp. 239–283). Dordrecht: D. Reidel. Reprinted in Salmon and Soames (1988), pp. 102–148.Google Scholar
  24. Langford, C. H. (1937). Review of the significs of pasigraphic systems: A contribution to the psychology of the mathematical thought process by E. W. Beth. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 2, 53–54.Google Scholar
  25. Lewis, D. (1976). The paradoxes of time travel. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 13, 145–152.Google Scholar
  26. Lewis, D. (1986). On the plurality of worlds. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  27. McCullagh, M. (2007). Understanding mixed quotation. Mind, 116, 927–946.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Portner, P. (2009). Modality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Potts, C. (2007). The dimensions of quotation. In C. Barker & P. Jacobson (Eds.), Direct compositionality (pp. 405–431). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Pryor, J. (2016). Mental graphs. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 7, 309–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Rieber, S. (1994). Review of talk about beliefs, by Mark Crimmins. Philosophical Psychology, 7, 395–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Salmon, N. (1986). Frege’s puzzle. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  33. Salmon, N. (1989). Illogical belief. Philosophical Perspectives, 3, 243–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Salmon, N., & Soames, S. (Eds.). (1988). Propositions and attitudes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Saul, J. (1997). Substitution and simple sentences. Analysis, 57, 102–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Saul, J. (1998). The pragmatics of attitude ascription. Philosophical Studies, 92, 364–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Saul, J. (2007). Simple sentences, substitution, and intuitions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Schiffer, S. (1987). Remnants of meaning. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  39. Schiffer, S. (1992). Belief ascription. Journal of Philosophy, 89, 499–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Sellars, W. (1962). Truth and correspondence. Journal of Philosophy, 59, 29–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Seymour, M. (1992). A sentential theory of propositional attitudes. Journal of Philosophy, 89, 181–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Siegel, J., & Shuster, J. (1938). Superman. Action Comics, 1, 1–13.Google Scholar
  43. Soames, S. (1987a). Direct reference, propositional attitudes, and semantic content. Philosophical Topics, 15, 47–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Soames, S. (1987b). Substitutivity. In J. J. Thomson (Ed.), On being and saying: Essays for Richard Cartwright (pp. 99–132). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  45. Soames, S. (2002). Beyond rigidity: The unfinished semantic agenda of naming and necessity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Soames, S. (2005). Naming and asserting. In Z. Gendler Szabó (Ed.), Semantics versus pragmatics (pp. 356–382). Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Stalnaker, R. (1984). Inquiry. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  48. Wettstein, H. (1986). Has semantics rested on a mistake? Journal of Philosophy, 83, 185–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of GuelphGuelphCanada

Personalised recommendations