, Volume 44, Issue 1, pp 227–245 | Cite as

A Modulation Account of Negative Existentials

  • David C. SpewakJr.


Fictional characters present a problem for semantic theorists. One approach to this problem has been to maintain realism regarding fictional characters, that is to claim that fictional characters exist. In this way names originating from fiction have designata. On this approach the problem of negative existentials is more pressing than it might otherwise be since an explanation must be given as to why we judge them true when the names occurring within them designate existing objects. So, realists must explain the intuitive truth of such statements. Some realists have appealed to pragmatics to explain this, but have not developed these positions fully. What follows is an original account of negative existentials based on the pragmatic process of modulation. Modulation affects the meaning of ‘exists’ such that its extension is merely those things that exist physically. It is then argued that the modulation approach provides a more natural account of the intuitive truth of negative existentials involving fictional characters than an account based on conversational implicatures. Finally, the modulation account is defended against objections presented against similar accounts.


Fictional characters Negative existentials Modulation Pragmatics 


  1. Bach, K. (1994). Conversational impliciture. Mind and Language, 9, 124–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brock, S. (2010). The creationist fiction: The case against creationism about fictional characters. Philosophical Review, 119(3), 337–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Carston, R. (2002). Thoughts and Utterances. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Clapp, L. (2012). Indexical color predicates: truth conditional semantics vs. truth conditional pragmatics. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 42(2), 71–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Collins, J. (2007). Syntax, more or less. Mind, 116, 805–850.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Everett, A. (2007). Pretense, existence, and fictional objects. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 74(1), 56–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Everett, A. (2013). The Nonexistent. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Grice, H. (1989). Studies in the way of words. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Hale, K., & Keyser, J. (1987). A View from the Middle. Lexicon Project, Center for Cognitive Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
  10. Higginbotham, J. (1989). Elucidations of meaning. Linguistics and Philosophy, 12(4), 465–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kennedy, C., & McNally, L. (2010). Color, context, and compositionality. Synthese, 174(1), 79–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kripke, S.A. (2013). Reference and Existence: the John Locke Lectures for 1973. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Neale, S. (2007). Heavy hands, magic, and scene-reading traps. European Journal of Analytic Philosophy, 3(2), 77–132.Google Scholar
  14. Pelczar, M. (2000). Wittgensteinian semantics. Noûs, 34(4), 483–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Predelli, S. (2002). ‘holmes’ and holmes: A millian analysis of names from fiction. Dialectica, 56(3), 261–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Récanati, F. (2004). Literal Meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Récanati, F. (2011). Truth-conditional pragmatics. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Salmon, N. (1986). Frege’s Puzzle. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  19. Salmon, N. (1989). Illogical belief. In Content, Cognition, and Communication, Philosophical Papers, (Vol. 2 pp. 193–223). London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Salmon, N. (1998). Nonexistence. Noûs, 32, 277–319. reprinted in (Salmon 2005) pp. 50–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Salmon, N. (2005). Metaphysics, mathematics, and meaning (Vol. 1). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Searle, J. (1980). The background of meaning. In R. John, M.B. Searle & F. Kiefer (Eds.), Speech act theory and pragmatics (pp. 221–232). Hingham: Reidel.Google Scholar
  23. Stanley, J. (2002a). Making it articulated. Mind and Language, 17(1 & 2), 149–168. reprinted in Stanley (2007), pp. 182–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Stanley, J. (2002b). Nominal restriction. In Preyer, G., & Peter, G. (Eds.) Logical Form and Lanuage. reprinted in Stanley (2007), pp. 111–132 (pp. 365–390). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Stanley, J. (2005). Semantics in context. In Preyer, G., & Peter, G. (Eds.) Contextualism in Philosophy. reprinted in Stanley (2007), pp. 201–230 (pp. 221–254). Worcester: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  26. Stanley, J. (2007). Language in context: selected essays. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Thomasson, A. (1999). Fiction and Metaphysics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  28. van Inwagen, P. (1977). Creatures of fiction. American Philosophical Quarterly, 14(4), 299–308.Google Scholar
  29. van Inwagen, P. (1983). Fiction and metaphysics. Philosophy and Literature, 7(1), 67–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. von Solodkoff, T. (2014). Fictional realism and negative existentials. In García-Carpintero, M., & Martí, G. (Eds.) Empty Representations: Reference and Non-Existence (pp. 333–352). London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Philosophy and ReligionMississippi State UniversityMississippi StateUSA

Personalised recommendations