Whilst it may seem strange to ask to whom “I” refers, we show that there are occasionswhen it is not always obvious. In demonstratingthis we challenge Kaplan's assumptionthat the utterer, agent and referent of “I” arealways the same person.
We begin by presenting what weregard to be the received view about indexicalreference popularized by David Kaplan in hisinfluential 1972 “Demonstratives” before goingon, in section 2, to discuss Sidelle'sanswering machine paradox which may be thoughtto threaten this view, and his deferredutterance method of resolving this puzzle. Insection 3 we introduce a novel version of theanswering machine paradox which suggests that,in certain cases, Kaplan's identification ofutterer, agent and referent of “I” breaks down.In the fourth section we go on to consider arecent revision of Kaplan's picture by Predelliwhich appeals to the intentions of the utterer,before arguing that this picture is committedto unacceptable consequences and, therefore,should be avoided if possible. Finally, insection 5, we present a new revision ofKaplan's account which retains much of thespirit of his original proposal whilst offeringa intuitively acceptable way to explain all ofthe apparently problematic data. In doing so,we also show how this picture is able toexplain the scenario which motivated Predelli'saccount without appealing to speakerintentions.
KeywordsFourth Section Problematic Data Original Proposal Receive View Unacceptable Consequence
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Almog, J., Perry, J. and Wettstein, H. (eds.) (1989): Themes from Kaplan, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- French, P.A., Uehling T.E. and Wettstein, H.K. (eds.) (1977): Contemporary Perspectives in the Philosophy of Language, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
- Hale, R. and Wright, C. (eds.), Companion to the Philosophy of Language, Oxford: B. Blackwell.Google Scholar
- Kaplan, D. (1977): ‘Demonstratives’, in J. Almog, J. Perry and H. Wettstein (eds.) (1989), Themes from Kaplan, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 481–563.Google Scholar
- Kaplan, D. (1978): ‘Dthat’, in P. Yourgrau (ed.) (1990), Demonstratives, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 11–33.Google Scholar
- Kaplan, D. (1989): ‘Afterthoughts’, in J. Almog, J. Perry and H. Wettstein (eds.), Themes from Kaplan, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 565–614.Google Scholar
- Kripke, S. (1977): ‘Speaker's Reference and Semantics Reference’, in P. French, T. Uehling and H.K. Wettstein (eds.), Contemporary Perspectives in the Philosophy of Language, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, pp. 6–27.Google Scholar
- Perry, J. (1997): ‘Indexicals and Demonstratives’, in R. Hale and C. Wright (eds.), Companion to the Philosophy of Language, Oxord: B. Blackwell, pp. 586–612.Google Scholar
- Predelli, S. (1998a): ‘I am not Here Now’, Analysis 58(2), 107–115.Google Scholar
- Predelli, S. (1998b): ‘Utterance, Interpretation, and the Logic of Indexicals’, Mind and Language 13(3), 400–414.Google Scholar
- Reichenbach, H. (1947): Elements of Symbolic Logics, New York: Free Press, #50, pp. 284–286.Google Scholar
- Sidelle, A. (1991): ‘The Answering Machine Paradox’, Canadian Journal of Philosophy 81(4), 525–539.Google Scholar
- Smith, Q. (1989): ‘The Multiple Uses of Indexicals’, Synthese 78, 167–191.Google Scholar
- Vision, G. (1985): ‘I am Here Now’, Analysis 45(4), 198–199.Google Scholar
- Yourgrau, P. (ed.) (1990): Demonstratives, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar