Lessons from the Logic of Demonstratives: what indexicality teaches us about logic, and vice versa

  • Gillian Russell
Part of the New Waves in Philosophy book series (NWIP)


Logic and linguistically-informed philosophy of language are becoming increasingly specialised disciplines. I think this is a consequence of the fact that each is making rapid progress, but it has as a consequence that it has become less routine for someone who is doing cutting-edge work on central topics in the one to also be doing cutting-edge work on central topics in the other. As a result, the topics which receive a lot of attention from logicians may be things that the average philosopher of language regards as fringe topics—e.g. logics of belief or substructural logics—and some central topics in linguistically informed philosophy of language—e.g. the structure of propositions, adverbs or contextualism— may be largely ignored in logic. The aim of the present paper is to provide some contamination in both directions. I will take one seminal idea from the philosophy of language and explore some consequences for logic (or at the very least, for the philosophy of logic) and then take one method from logic, and use it to prove a theorem that can help to explain and clarify some ideas in the philosophy of language.


Logical Consequence Logical Truth Indexical Expression Substructural Logic Vague Predicate 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bostock, D. (1997). Intermediate Logic. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  2. Burgess, J. P. (1997). Quinus ab omni nævo vindicatus. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, Supplementary Volume 23: Meaning and Reference.Google Scholar
  3. Castaneda, H.-N. (1968). On the logic of attributions of self-knowledge to others. Journal of Philosophy, 65(15).Google Scholar
  4. Etchemendy, J. (1999). On the Concept of Logical Consequence. CSLI, Stanford.Google Scholar
  5. Gomez-Torrente, M. (1998). On a fallacy attributed to Tarski. History and Philosophy of Logic, 9.Google Scholar
  6. Kaplan, D. (1989a). Afterthoughts. In Almog, J., Perry, J., and Wettstein, H., editors, Themes from Kaplan. Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  7. Kaplan, D. (1989b). Demonstratives: An essay on the semantics, logic, metaphysics, and epistemology of demonstratives. In Almog, J., Perry, J., and Wettstein, H., editors, Themes from Kaplan. Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  8. Kaplan, D. (1999). What is Russell’s theory of descriptions? In Irvine, A. D., editor, Bertrand Russell: Language, Knowledge and the World. Routledge, London.Google Scholar
  9. Kennedy, C. (2012). Adjectives. In Fara, D. G. and Russell, G., editors, The Routledge Companion to the Philosophy of Language. Routledge, New York.Google Scholar
  10. King, J. C. (2001). Complex Demonstratives. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
  11. King, J. C. (2003). Tense, modality, and semantic values. Philosophical Perspectives, 17(1):195–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Lewis, D. (1979). Attitudes de dicto and de re. The Philosophical Review, 88: 513–543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. MacFarlane, J. (2005). The assessment sensitivity of knowledge attributions. In Oxford Studies in Epistemology 1, pages 197–233. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  14. MacFarlane, J. (2009). Non-indexical contextualism. Synthese, 166:231–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Perry, J. (1988). The problem of the essential indexical. In Salmon, N. and Soames, S., editors, Propositions and Attitudes, Oxford Readings in Philosophy. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Prior, A. N. (1960). The autonomy of ethics. The Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 38:199–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Quine, W. V. O. (1935). Truth by convention. In The Ways of Paradox and other essays, chapter 9, pages 70–99. Random House, New York.Google Scholar
  18. Restall, G. and Russell, G. (2010). Barriers to Implication. In Pigden, C., editor, Hume, Is and Ought: New Essays. Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  19. Russell, G. (2010a). Indexicals, context-sensitivity and the failure of implication. Synthese, pages 1–18. 10.1007/s11229-010-9756-9.Google Scholar
  20. Russell, G. (2010b). A new problem for the linguistic doctrine of necessary truth. In Cory D. Wright and Nikolaj J.L.L. Pedersen, editors, New Waves in Truth, pages 267–281. Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  21. Tarski, A. (1983). On the concept of logical consequence. In Corcoran, J., editor, Logic, Semantics and metamathematics, pages 409–420. Hackett, Indianapolis, 2nd edition.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Gillian Russell 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gillian Russell

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations