, Volume 59, Issue 2, pp 263–283 | Cite as

Complex Demonstratives Qua Singular Terms

  • Eros Corazza


In a recent book, Jeffrey King (King 2001) argues that complexdemonstratives, i.e., noun phrases of the form `this/that F’, are not singular terms. As such,they are not devices of direct reference contributing the referent to the proposition expressed.In this essay I challenge King's position and show how a direct reference view can handle the datahe proposes in favor of the quantificational account. I argue that when a complex demonstrativecannot be interpreted as a singular term, it is best understood as a case of deferredreference – in which case it should be viewed as an anaphora inheriting its value from a quantifiedterm – or as an emphatic description.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Barwise, J. and R. Cooper: 1981, ‘Generalized Quantifiers and Natural Language’, Linguistics and Philosophy 4, 159-219.Google Scholar
  2. Bach, K.: 1989, ‘The Myth of Conventional Implicature’, Linguistics and Philosophy 22, 327-366.Google Scholar
  3. Corazza, E.: 2002, ‘Description-Names’, Journal of Philosophical Logic 31, 313-326.Google Scholar
  4. Corazza, E.: 2002a, ‘'She' and ‘He': Politically Correct Pronouns’, Philosophical Studies 111(2), 173-196.Google Scholar
  5. Corazza, E.: 2004, ‘On the Alleged Ambiguity of ‘Now' and ‘Here' ‘, Synthese 138, forthcoming.Google Scholar
  6. Dever, J.: 2001, ‘Complex Demonstratives’, Linguistics and Philosophy 24, 271-330.Google Scholar
  7. Kaplan, D.: 1977, ‘Demonstratives’, in Almog et al. (eds.), 1989, Themes from Kaplan, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 481-563.Google Scholar
  8. Kaplan, D.: 1989, ‘Afterthoughts’, in Almog et al. (eds.), Themes from Kaplan, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 565-614.Google Scholar
  9. King, J.: 2001, Complex Demonstratives: A Quantificational Account, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  10. Larson, L. and P. Ludlow: 1993, ‘Interpreted Logical Form’, Synthese 95, 305-555.Google Scholar
  11. Lepore, E. and K. Ludwig: 2000, ‘The Semantics and Pragmatics of Complex Demonstratives’, Mind 109, 199-240.Google Scholar
  12. Marti, G.: 1995, ‘The Essence of Genuine Reference’, Journal of Philosophical Logic 24, 275-289.Google Scholar
  13. May, R.: 1985, Logical Form. Its Structure and Derivation, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  14. Neale, S.: 1993, ‘Terms Limits’, Philosophical Perspectives 7, 89-124.Google Scholar
  15. Neale, S.: 1999, ‘Coloring and Composition’, in K. Murasugi and R. Stainton (eds.), Philosophy and Linguistics, Westview Press, Boulder, CO, pp. 35-82.Google Scholar
  16. Perry, J.: 1988, ‘Cognitive Significance and New Theories of Reference’, Noû s 22, 1-18.Google Scholar
  17. Perry, J.: 1997, ‘Indexicals and Demonstratives’, in R. Hale and C. Wright (eds.), Companion to the Philosophy of Language, Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 586-612.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eros Corazza
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyThe University of NottinghamUniversity Park Nottingham

Personalised recommendations