The double life of ‘The mayor of Oakland’

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 ‘the r ’ which forms referring descriptions, and a determiner ‘the p ’ 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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

  1. Barker C. (1995) Possessive definites. CSLI Publications, Stanford

    Google 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.

  3. Bowers J. (1993) The syntax of predication. Linguistic Inquiry 24(4): 591–656

    Google Scholar 

  4. Burge T. (1973) Reference and proper names. The Journal of Philosophy 70(14): 425–439

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Chomsky N. (1965) Aspects of the theory of syntax. MIT Press, Cambridge MA

    Google 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.

  7. Devitt M. (2005) Rigid application. Philosophical Studies 125: 139–165

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Elbourne P. (2005) Situations and individuals. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  9. Elbourne P. (2010) The existence entailments of definite descriptions. Linguistics and Philosophy 33(1): 1–10

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Fara D. G. (2001) Descriptions as predicates. Philosophical Studies 102: 1–42

    Article  Google 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.

  12. Frege, G. (1997). Comments on Sinn and Bedeutung. In M. Beaney (Ed.), The Frege Reader (pp. 172–180). Oxford: Blackwell.

  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.

  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.

  15. Heim I., Kratzer A. (1998) Semantics in generative grammar. Blackwell, Malden, MA

    Google 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.

  17. Heycock C., Kroch A. (1999) Pseudocleft connectedness: Implications for the LF interface level. Linguistic Inquiry 30(3): 365–397

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Higgins F. (1979) The pseudo-cleft construction in English. Garland Publishing, New York

    Google Scholar 

  19. Hofweber T. (2005a) A puzzle about ontology. Noûs 39(2): 256–283

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Hofweber T. (2005b) Supervenience and object-dependent properties. The Journal of Philosophy 102(1): 1–28

    Google Scholar 

  21. Jackendoff R. (1984) On the phrase the phrase ‘the phrase’. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 2(1): 25–37

    Article  Google 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, MA

    Google 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.

  25. Lasersohn P. (2009) Relative truth, speark commitment, and control of implicit arguments. Synthese 166(2): 359–374

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Löbner S. (1985) Definites. Journal of Semantics 4(4): 279–326

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Löbner S. (2011) Concept types and determination. Journal of Semantics 28(3): 279–333

    Article  Google 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.

  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.

  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.

  32. Partee, B. (1986a). Ambiguous pseudoclefts with unambiguous be. In Compositionality in formal semantics: Selected papers, 2004. Oxford: Blackwell.

  33. Partee, B. (1986b). Noun phrase interpretation and type-shifting principles. In Compositionality in formal semantics: Selected papers. Oxford: Blackwell.

  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.

  35. Quine W. V. (1960) Word and object. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  36. Rieppel, M. (2013). Being something: Prospects for a property-based approach to predicative quantification. Ph.D. Thesis, UC Berkeley.

  37. Rothstein, S. (1995). Small clauses and copular constructions. In Syntax and semantics, Vol. 28: Small Clauses. New York: Academic Press.

  38. Russell B. (1905) On denoting. Mind 14: 479–493

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Schiffer, S. (2003). The things we mean. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

  40. Schwarz, F. (2009). Two types of definites in natural language. Ph.D. Thesis, UMass Amherst.

  41. Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech acts, 2009 edition. London: Cambridge University Press.

  42. Sloat C. (1969) Proper nouns in English. Language 45(1): 26–30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Soames S. (2002) Beyond rigidity. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  44. Strawson P. F. (1950) On referring. Mind 59(235): 320–344

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Szabó Z. G. (2000) Descriptions and uniqueness. Philosophical Studies 101(1): 29–57

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Teichmann R. (1989) Three kinds of realism about universals. The Philosophical Quarterly 39(155): 143–165

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Williams E. (1983) Semantic vs. syntactic categories. Linguistics and Philosophy 6: 423–446

    Article  Google 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.

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael Rieppel.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Rieppel, M. The double life of ‘The mayor of Oakland’. Linguist and Philos 36, 417–446 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-013-9141-5

Download citation

Keywords

  • Copular clauses
  • Predication and equation
  • Definite descriptions
  • Proper names
  • Reference