Advertisement

Indexicals

  • Philippe Schlenker
Chapter
Part of the Springer Undergraduate Texts in Philosophy book series (SUTP)

Abstract

Indexicals are context-dependent expressions such as I, you, here and now, whose semantic value depends on the context in which they are uttered. They raise two kinds of questions. First, they are often thought to be scopeless – e.g. with I rigidly referring to the speaker – and to give rise to non-trivial patterns of inference – e.g. I exist seems to be a priori true despite the fact that I necessarily exist isn’t. Second, indexicals may play a crucial role in the expression of irreducibly De Se thoughts, and both the existence of such thoughts and the ways in which they can be reported in indirect discourse must be elucidated. The Kaplanian picture posits that indexicals take their value from a distinguished context parameter, whose very nature is responsible for some entailments, and which remains fixed – hence the apparent scopelessness of indexicals. It further posits that while indexicals may serve to express irreducibly De Se thoughts, these may not be reported as such in indirect discourse (no ‘De Se readings’). Both tenets have been criticized in recent research: there are a variety of constructions across languages in which the context parameter appears to be shifted; and several types of indirect discourse (some of them involving context shift) do give rise to De Se readings.

Keywords

Indexicals Attitude reports Monsters Context-dependency Intensional semantics 

References and Recommended Readings14

  1. 1.
    Anand, P., & Nevins, A. (2004). Shifty operators in changing contexts. In: Proceedings of semantics and linguistic theory (=SALT) 14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    * Anand, P. (2006). De De Se. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT. [very detailed empirical study of indexicals and De Se reports in several languages, including Zazaki]Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Banfield, A. (1982). Unspeakable Sentences (Narration and Representation in the Language of Fiction). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Braun, D. (2001). Indexicals. In Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/indexicals/
  5. 5.
    Castañeda, H.-N. (1966). He: A study in the logic of self-consciousness. Ratio, 7, 130–157.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Castañeda, H.-N. (1967). Indicators and quasi-indicators. American Philosophical Quaterly, 4(2), 85–100.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Castañeda, H.-N. (1968). On the logic of attributions of self-knowledge to others. The Journal of Philosophy, 65(15), 439–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chierchia, G. (1987). Anaphora and attitudes de se’. In B. van Bartsch & E. van Boas (Eds.), Language in context. Foris: Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cresswell, M. (1990). Entities and indices. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Crimmins, M. (1998). Hesperus and phosphorus: Sense, pretense, and reference. The Philosophical Review, 107, 1–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    * Deal, A. R. (2017). Shifty asymmetries: Universals and variation in shifty indexicality. Manuscript. Berkeley: University of Californa.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Eckardt, R. (2014). Semantics of free indirect discourse: How texts allow us to mind-read and eavesdrop. Leiden: Brill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Haas-Spohn, U. (1994). Versteckte Indexicalität und subjective Bedeutung. Ph. D. dissertation, Universität Tübingen.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Israel, D., & Perry, J. (1996). Where monsters dwell. In J. Seligman & D. Westerstahl (Eds.), Logic, language and computation (Vol. 1). Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    * Kaplan, D. (1977/1989). Demonstratives. In P. Almog & Wettstein (Eds.) Themes from Kaplan. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989 [the main classic in the literature on indexicals]Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    * Kaplan, D. (1978). On the logic of demonstratives. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 8, 81–98. [a shorter presentation of some of the results in Kaplan 1977/1989]Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    * Lewis, D. (1979). Attitudes de dicto and de se. Philosophical Review, 88(4), 513–543. [main classic in the literature on attitudes De Se].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lewis, D. (1980). Index, context, and content. In S. Kanger & S. Ohman (Eds.), Philosophy and grammar (pp. 79–100). Dordrecht: Reidel. Reprinted in Lewis 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    * Maier, E. (2006). Belief in context: Towards a unified semantics of De Re and Se attitude reports. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Nijmegen. [Includes a very clear survey of results on shifted indexicals and De Se readings]Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Morgan, J. (1970). On the criterion of identity for noun phrase deletion. In Proceedings of Chicago Linguistic Society (= CLS) 6.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ninan, D. (2010). Semantics and the objects of assertion. Manuscript, University of St. Andrews.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Pearson, H. (2012). The sense of self: Topics in the semantics of De Se expressions. Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Perry, J. (1993). The problem of the essential indexical. In The problem of the essential indexical and other essays. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Perry, J. (1997). Reflexivity, indexicality and names. In W. Kunne et al. (Eds.), Direct reference, indexicality and proposition attitudes. Stanford: CSLI-Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Perry, J. (2001). Reference and reflexivity. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Predelli, S. (1998). Utterance, interpretation and the logic of indexicals. Mind and Language, 13, 400–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Schlenker, P. (1999). Propositional atittudes and indexicality: A cross-categorial approach. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Schlenker, P. (2003). A Plea for monsters. Linguistics and Philosophy, 26, 29–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Schlenker, P. (2004). Context of thought and context of utterance (A note on free Indirect discourse and the historical present). Mind and Language, 19(3), 279–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    * Schlenker, P. (2011). Indexicality and De Se reports. In von Heusinger, Maienborn, & Portner (Eds.), Semantics (Vol. 2, Article 61, pp. 1561–1604). Mouton de Gruyter. [longer survey than the present one, with more details on the linguistic side of things.]Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Sharvit, Y. (2004). Free indirect discourse and de re pronouns. In R. Young (Ed.), Proceedings of semantics and linguistic theory (= SALT) 14 (pp. 305–322). Ithaca: CLC Publications, Cornell University.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    * Sharvit, Y. (2008). The puzzle of free indirect discourse. Linguistics and Philosophy, 31. 353–395. [a good source on the theoretical and empirical issues raised by Free Indirect Discourse; somewhat technical]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Stalnaker, R. (1981). Indexical belief. Synthese, 49, 129–151.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Stalnaker, R. (1999). Context and content. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    von Stechow, A. (2002). Binding by verbs: Tense, person and mood under attitudes. In H. Lohnstein & S. Trissler (Eds.), The syntax and semantics of the left periphery (Vol. 44). Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    von Stechow, A. (2003). Feature deletion under semantic binding: Tense, person, and mood under verbal quantifiers. In M. Kadowaki & S. Kawahara (Eds.), NELS 33: Proceedings of the thirty-third annual meeting of the North East linguistic society, GLSA (pp. 379–404). Amherst: University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    von Stechow, A., & Zimmermann, T. E. (2005). A problem for a compositional treatment of de re attitudes. In G. Carlson & F. J. Pelletier (Eds.), Reference and quantification: The partee effect (pp. 207–228). Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Stojanovic, I. (2008). What is said: An inquiry into reference, meaning and content. DM Verlag, Saarbrücken.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Stojanovic, I. (2009). Semantic content. Manuscrito, 32, 123–152.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Zimmermann, T. E. (1991). Kontextabhängigkeit. In A. von Stechow & D. Wunderlich (Eds.) Semantik: ein internationales Handbuch der zeitgenössischen Forschung. [Very detailed presentation of the formal and empirical issues as of the beginning of the 1990’s.]Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Philippe Schlenker
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Département d’Etudes Cognitives, Ecole Normale Supérieure, Institut Jean-Nicod (ENS – EHESS – CNRS)PSL Research UniversityParisFrance
  2. 2.Department of LinguisticsNew York UniversityNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations