Advertisement

What Do Proper Names Refer to?

The Simple Sentence Puzzle and Identity Statements
  • Tomohiro SakaiEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10091)

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to solve the simple sentence puzzle about proper names. (1) Superman leaps more tall buildings than Clark Kent. (2) Superman = Clark Kent. (3) Superman leaps more tall buildings than Superman. Even when (1) and (2) are true, (3) is false. It will be shown that this is not a real puzzle, because (i) (1) and (3) do not express singular propositions, and (ii) the identity statement in (2) only concerns singular propositions. In (1) and (3), the proper names refer to aspects of an individual at the level of explicature, while identity statements of the form X = Y mean that Y can be substituted for X salva veritate, only in singular propositions about X /Y. Given this difference in reference between (1)/(3) and (2), the conjunction of (1) and (2) does not entail (3), in accordance with our intuition.

Keywords

Simple sentence puzzle Identity statement Substitution Singular proposition Proposition about aspects 

Notes

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank Daisuke Bekki (Ochanomizu University/JST CREST/National Institute of Informatics), who kindly gave me the opportunity to present this paper at LENLS 12, held at Keio University, Yokohama, Japan, on November 15–17 2015. This work was supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number 25370437.

References

  1. 1.
    Barbar, A.: A pragmatic treatment of simple sentences. Analysis 60, 300–308 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bloom, P.: How Children Learn the Meanings of Words. The MIT Press, Cambridge (2000)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Braun, D., Saul, J.: Simple sentences, substitutions, and mistaken evaluation. Philos. Stud. 111, 1–41 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Evans, G.: The Varieties of Reference. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1982)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Forbes, G.: How much substitutivity? Analysis 57, 109–113 (1997)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Forbes, G.: Enlightened semantics for simple sentences. Analysis 59, 86–91 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Frege, G.: Begriffsschrift. Nebert, Halle (1879)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Frege, G.: Über Sinn und Bedeutung. Zeitschrift für Philosophische Kritik 100, 25–50 (1892)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fujikawa, N.: Namae ni Nan no Imi ga Arunoka (What’s in a Name?: Philosophy of Proper Names). Keisoushobou (in Japanese) (2014)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Grice, P.: Studies in the Way of Words. Harvard University Press, Cambridge (1989)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Koyama, T., Nakayama, Y.: The simple sentence puzzle and ambiguous co-referential names. Ann. Jpn. Assoc. Philos. Sci. 10(3), 127–138 (2001)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Langacker, R.W.: Cognitive Grammar. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Locke, J.: An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. Penguin Classics (1997 [1689])Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lycan, W.G.: Philosophy of Language: A Contemporary Introduction, 2nd edn. Routledge, New York (2000)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mill, J.S.: A System of Logic. Longmans, London (1843)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Moore, J.: Saving substitutivity in simple sentences. Analysis 59, 91–105 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Moore, J.: Did clinton lie? Analysis 60, 250–254 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Noya, S.: Katarienu Mono Wo Kataru (Speaking the Unspeakable). Koudansha (in Japanese) (2011)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Recanati, F.: Direct Reference: From Language to Thought. Blackwell Publishers, Oxford (1993)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Recanati, F.: Literal Meaning. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2004)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Russell, B.: The Philosophy of Logical Atomism and Other Essays 1914-19 (The collected papers of Bertrand Russell 8). Allen & Unwin Ltd, London (1956)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sakai, T.: L’énigme des énoncés d’identité de type « a = b » : Une solution grammaticale. Langue et littérature françaises 101, 23–37 (2012)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sakai, T.: Contextualizing tautologies: from radical pragmatics to meaning eliminativism. Engl. Linguist. 29–1, 38–68 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sato, N.: Retorikku No Kigouron (Semiotics of Rhetoric). Koudansha (in Japanese) (1993)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Saul, J.: Substitutions and simple sentences. Analysis 57, 102–108 (1997)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Saul, J.: Substitution, simple sentence, and sex scandals. Analysis 59, 106–112 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Saul, J.: Simple Sentences, Substitution, and Intuitions. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Wittgenstein, L.: Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. Routledge & Kegan Paul, Side-by-side-by side edition at https://people.umass.edu/klement/tlp/ (1922)
  29. 29.
    Wittgenstein, L.: Philosophische Untersuchungen. In: Anscombe, G.E.M. (ed.) Philosophical Investigations. Basil Blackwell, Oxford (1953) Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Waseda UniversityTokyoJapan

Personalised recommendations