Review of Philosophy and Psychology

, Volume 2, Issue 4, pp 785–807 | Cite as

A Cognitive Theory of Empty Names



Ordinary use of empty names encompasses a variety of different phenomena, including issues in semantics, mental content, fiction, pretense, and linguistic practice. In this paper I offer a novel account of empty names, the cognitive theory, and show how it offers a satisfactory account of the phenomena. The virtues of this theory are based on its strength and parsimony. It allows for a fully homogeneous semantic treatment of names coped with ontological frugality and empirical and psychological adequacy.


  1. Adams, F., and R. Stecker. 1994. Vacuous singular terms. Mind & Language 9(4): 387–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anscombe 1957, G.E.M., Intention. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  3. Baron-Cohen, S., A.M. Leslie, and U. Frith. 1985. Does the autistic child have a “theory of mind”? Cognition 21: 37–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bosco, F.M., O. Friedman, and A.M. Leslie. 2006. Recognition of pretend and real actions in play by 1- and 2-year-olds: Early success and why they fail. Cognitive Development 21: 3–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Braun, D. 2005. Empty names, fictional names, mythical names. Nous 39(4): 596–631.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brentano, F. 1874. Psychology from an empirical standpoint. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  7. Brock, S. 2004. The ubiquitous problem of empty names. Journal of Philosophy 101(6): 277–298.Google Scholar
  8. Byrne, A. 2009. Experience and content. The Philosophical Quarterly 59(236): 429–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Clapp, L. 2008. The problem of negative existentials doesn’t exist. Journal of Pragmatics 41: 1422–1434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Clapp, L., 2010. Is even thought compositional? Philosophical Studies, (online, October 2010).Google Scholar
  11. Everett, A. 2000. Referentialism and empty names. In Empty names, fiction, and the puzzles of non-existence, eds. A. Everett, and T. Hofweber. CSLI: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  12. Fodor, J.A. 2001. Language, thought and compositionality. Mind & Language 16: 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fodor, J.A. 2008. LOT2 the language of thought revisited. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
  14. Friedman, O., and A.M. Leslie. 2007. The conceptual underpinnings of pretense: Pretending is not ‘behaving as if’. Cognition 105: 103–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Friend, S. 2009. The great beetle debate: A study in imagining with names. Philosophical Studies. Published online.Google Scholar
  16. Garcia-Ramirez, E., and M. Shatz. 2011. On problems with descriptivism: Psychological assumptions and empirical evidence. Mind & Language 26(1): 53–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gómez, J.C. 2008. The evolution of pretence: From intentional availability to intentional non-existence. Mind & Language 23(5): 586–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Heim, I. 1982. The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases. Ph.D. Thesis. Amherst: University of Massachussetts.Google Scholar
  19. Humberstone, I.L. 1992. Direction of fit. Mind 101(401): 59–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Jacob, P. 2003. Intentionality. In E. Zalta (ed.) Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy available online:
  21. Kriegel, U. 2007. Intentional inexistence and phenomenal intentionality. Philosophical Perspectives, 21, Philosophy of Mind 307–40.Google Scholar
  22. Leslie, A.M. 1987. Pretense and representation: The origins of “theory of mind”. Psychological Review 94: 412–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Leslie, A.M. 1994. Pretending and believing: Issues in the theory of ToMM. Cognition 50: 211–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Leslie, A.M. 2002. Pretense and representation revisited. In Representation, memory and development: Essays in honor of Jean Mandler, ed. N.L. Stein, P.J. Bauer, and M. Rabinowitz. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  25. Leslie, S.J. 2008. Generics: Cognition and acquisition. Philosophical Review 117(1): 1–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lillard, A.S. 1993. Pretend play skills and the child’s theory of mind. Child Development 64: 348–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lillard, A.S. 2001. Pretend play as twin earth: A social-cognitive analysis. Developmental Review 21: 495–531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Nichols, S., and S. Stich. 2000. A cognitive theory of pretense. Cognition 74: 115–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Nichols, S., and S. Stich. 2003. Mindreading: An integrated account of pretense, self-awareness and understanding other minds. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Perner, J., B. Rendl, and A. Garnham. 2007. Objects of desire, thought, and reality: Problems of anchoring discourse referents in development. Mind & Language 22(5): 475–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Perry, J. 2001. Reference and reflexivity. CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
  32. Platts, M. 1979. Ways of meaning. London: Routledge and Keagan Paul.Google Scholar
  33. Reimer, M. 2001a. The problem of empty names. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 79(4): 491–506.Google Scholar
  34. Reimer, M. 2001b. A “Meinongian” solution to a Millian problem. American Philosophical Quarterly 38(3): 233–248.Google Scholar
  35. Roberts, C. 1998. Information structure in discourse: Towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics. Ohio State University: typescript.Google Scholar
  36. Roberts, C. 2004. Context in dynamic interpretation. In The handbook of pragmatics, ed. L.R. Horn and G. Ward. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
  37. Russell, B. 1905. On denoting. Mind 14(56): 479–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Sainsbury, M. 2005. Reference without referents. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Sainsbury, M. 2010. Fiction and fictionalism. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  40. Salmon, N. 1998. Nonexistence. Nous 32(3): 277–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Shatz, M. 1994. A Toddler’s life. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Soames, S. 2002. Beyond rigidity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Stalnaker, R. 1978. Assertion. In Stalnaker, R. 1999: Context and content. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Taylor, K. 2000. Empty names without compromise. In Empty names, fiction, and the puzzles of non-existence, eds. A. Everett, and T. Hofweber. CSLI Publications: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  45. Thomasson, A.L. 2003. Speaking of fictional characters. Dialectica 57(2): 207–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Velleman, D.J. 1992. The guise of the good. Nous 26(1): 3–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Walton, K. 1990. Mimesis as make-believe. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Walton, K. 2000. Existence as metaphor? In Empty names, fiction, and the puzzles of non-existence, eds. A. Everett, and T. Hofweber. CSLI Publications: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  49. Walton, K. 2003. Restricted quantification, negative existentials, and fiction. Dialectica 57(2): 239–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Yablo, S. 2000. A paradox of existence. In Empty names, fiction, and the puzzles of nonexistence, eds. A. Everett, and T. Hofweber. CSLI Publications.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Instituto de Investigaciones Filosóficas, Ciudad UniversitariaUniversidad Nacional Autónoma de MéxicoMéxicoMéxico

Personalised recommendations