Linguistics and Philosophy

, Volume 36, Issue 5, pp 417–446 | Cite as

The double life of ‘The mayor of Oakland’

Research Article

Abstract

The Fregean analysis of definite descriptions as referring expressions predicts that copular sentences with definite descriptions in postcopular position are invariably interpreted as identity statements. But as numerous diagnostics show, such sentences are frequently capable of receiving a predicational reading. A uniform Fregean analysis therefore won’t do. Things aren’t that simple, however. I show that descriptions which exhibit the structure [the + N + of + Proper Name] fall into two semantically distinct classes, and that the members of one of these classes of descriptions (those I call “identifying”) pattern with proper names in resisting a predicative reading. I argue that a proposal according to which referring expressions can quite generally undergo a type shift that transforms them into predicates thus fails on grounds of overgeneration. I propose that we can account for the data by instead appealing to two definite determiners: a Fregean determiner ‘ther’ which forms referring descriptions, and a determiner ‘thep’ which forms predicative descriptions. I argue that this proposal also correctly predicts that copular sentences with proper names in postcopular position fail to have a predicational reading. I conclude the paper by defending the analysis of names to which I appeal against an alternative view inspired by Burge (J Philos 70(14):425–439, 1973), and suggest a way in which the desired results could be achieved while making do with a single definite article.

Keywords

Copular clauses Predication and equation Definite descriptions Proper names Reference 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Barker C. (1995) Possessive definites. CSLI Publications, StanfordGoogle Scholar
  2. Barker, C. (2011). Possessives and relational nouns. In K. von Heusinger, C. Maienborn, & P. Portner (Eds.), Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning (Vol. 2, pp. 1109–1130). Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.Google Scholar
  3. Bowers J. (1993) The syntax of predication. Linguistic Inquiry 24(4): 591–656Google Scholar
  4. Burge T. (1973) Reference and proper names. The Journal of Philosophy 70(14): 425–439CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chomsky N. (1965) Aspects of the theory of syntax. MIT Press, Cambridge MAGoogle Scholar
  6. Comorovski, I. (2007). Constituent questions and the copula of specification. In I. Comorovski & K. von Heusinger (Eds.), Existence: Semantics and syntax. of Studies in linguistics and philosophy (Vol. 84, pp. 49–77). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  7. Devitt M. (2005) Rigid application. Philosophical Studies 125: 139–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Elbourne P. (2005) Situations and individuals. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  9. Elbourne P. (2010) The existence entailments of definite descriptions. Linguistics and Philosophy 33(1): 1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fara D. G. (2001) Descriptions as predicates. Philosophical Studies 102: 1–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fara, D. G. (2006). Descriptions with adverbs of quantification. Philosophical Issues. Philosophy of language (Vol. 16, pp. 65–87). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Frege, G. (1997). Comments on Sinn and Bedeutung. In M. Beaney (Ed.), The Frege Reader (pp. 172–180). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  13. Geist, L. (2007). Predication and equation in copular sentences: Russian vs. English. In I. Comorovski & K. von Heusinger (Eds.), Existence: Semantics and syntax. Studies in linguistics and philosophy (Vol. 84, pp. 79–105). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  14. Heim, I. (1991). Artikel und Definitheit. In A. von Stechow & D. Wunderlich (Eds.), Semantik: Ein internationales Handbuch der zeitgenössischen Forschung. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  15. Heim I., Kratzer A. (1998) Semantics in generative grammar. Blackwell, Malden, MAGoogle Scholar
  16. Heller, D. (2005). Identity and information: Semantic and pragmatic aspects of specificational sentences. Ph.D. Thesis, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey.Google Scholar
  17. Heycock C., Kroch A. (1999) Pseudocleft connectedness: Implications for the LF interface level. Linguistic Inquiry 30(3): 365–397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Higgins F. (1979) The pseudo-cleft construction in English. Garland Publishing, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  19. Hofweber T. (2005a) A puzzle about ontology. Noûs 39(2): 256–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hofweber T. (2005b) Supervenience and object-dependent properties. The Journal of Philosophy 102(1): 1–28Google Scholar
  21. Jackendoff R. (1984) On the phrase the phrase ‘the phrase’. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 2(1): 25–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kripke, S. (1977). Speaker’s reference and semantic reference. Midwest Studies in Philosophy, 2(1), 255–276.Google Scholar
  23. Larson R., Segal G. (1995) Knowledge of meaning: An introduction to semantic theory. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  24. Lasersohn, P. (1986). The semantics of appositive and pseudo-appositive NP’s. In F. Marshall, A. Miller, & Z. S. Zhang (Eds.), Proceedings of the third easter states conference on linguistics (pp. 311–322). Pittsburgh, PA: The University of Pittsburgh.Google Scholar
  25. Lasersohn P. (2009) Relative truth, speark commitment, and control of implicit arguments. Synthese 166(2): 359–374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Löbner S. (1985) Definites. Journal of Semantics 4(4): 279–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Löbner S. (2011) Concept types and determination. Journal of Semantics 28(3): 279–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 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 syntax and semantics 6. Paris: Colloque de Syntaxe et Sémantique à Paris.Google Scholar
  29. Meyer, C. F. (1989). Restrictive apposition: An intermediate category. English Studies, 70, 147–166.Google Scholar
  30. Mikkelsen, L. (2005). Copular clauses: Specification, predication and equation. Linguistik Aktuell 85. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  31. Mikkelsen, L. (2011). Copular clauses. In K. von Heusinger, C. Maienborn, & P. Portner (Eds.), Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning (Vol. 2, pp. 1805–1829). Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.Google Scholar
  32. Partee, B. (1986a). Ambiguous pseudoclefts with unambiguous be. In Compositionality in formal semantics: Selected papers, 2004. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  33. Partee, B. (1986b). Noun phrase interpretation and type-shifting principles. In Compositionality in formal semantics: Selected papers. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  34. Payne, J., & Huddleston, R. (2002). Nouns and noun phrases. In R. Huddleston & G. K. Pullum (Eds.), The Cambridge grammar of the English language (Chap. 5, pp. 323–524). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Quine W. V. (1960) Word and object. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  36. Rieppel, M. (2013). Being something: Prospects for a property-based approach to predicative quantification. Ph.D. Thesis, UC Berkeley.Google Scholar
  37. Rothstein, S. (1995). Small clauses and copular constructions. In Syntax and semantics, Vol. 28: Small Clauses. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  38. Russell B. (1905) On denoting. Mind 14: 479–493CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Schiffer, S. (2003). The things we mean. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  40. Schwarz, F. (2009). Two types of definites in natural language. Ph.D. Thesis, UMass Amherst.Google Scholar
  41. Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech acts, 2009 edition. London: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Sloat C. (1969) Proper nouns in English. Language 45(1): 26–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Soames S. (2002) Beyond rigidity. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Strawson P. F. (1950) On referring. Mind 59(235): 320–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Szabó Z. G. (2000) Descriptions and uniqueness. Philosophical Studies 101(1): 29–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Teichmann R. (1989) Three kinds of realism about universals. The Philosophical Quarterly 39(155): 143–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Williams E. (1983) Semantic vs. syntactic categories. Linguistics and Philosophy 6: 423–446CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Wright, C. (1998). Why Frege does not deserve his Granum Salis. In J. L. Brandl & P. Sullivan (Eds.), New essays on the philosophy of Michael Dummett. Grazer Philosophische Studien, Internationale Zeitschrift für Analytische Philosophie (Vol. 55, pp. 239–263). Amsterdam: Editions Rodopi B.V.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of California, BerkeleyBerkeleyUSA

Personalised recommendations