SUPPORT FOR INDIVIDUAL CONCEPTS

This paper aims to provide support for the view that individual concepts are basic to natural language semantics. First, the use of constant individual concepts allows us to maintain Kripke's view of proper names as nondescriptional rigid designators in the face of problems created by so-called "empty names." And second, the distinction between constant and variable individual concepts can function in an analysis of the specific-nonspecific distinction in indefinite descriptions, parallel to Donnellan's referential-attributive distinction in definite descriptions. Additionally, I respond to arguments that these distinctions are not semantic, and provide evidence that they are.

[1]  G. Frege.  On Sense and Reference , 1948 .

[2]  L. Spier,et al.  Language, culture, and personality : essays in memory of Edward Sapir , 1942 .

[3]  B. L. Whorf.  The Relation of Habitual Thought and Behavior to Language , 1997 .

[4]  David Kaplan.  Demonstratives: An Essay on the Semantics, Logic, Metaphysics and Epistemology of Demonstratives and other Indexicals , 1989 .

[5]  B. L. Whorf.  Language, Thought, and Reality: Selected Writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf , 1956 .

[6]  M. Reimer.  Empty Names: Communicative Value without Semantic Value1 , 2007 .

[7]  Dana S. Scott,et al.  Advice on Modal Logic , 1970 .

[8]  C. Chastain,et al.  Reference and Context , 1975 .

[9]  Lauri Karttunen,et al.  Problems of reference in syntax , 1969 .

[10]  Keith S. Donnellan.  Reference and Definite Descriptions , 1966 .

[11]  I. H. Fichte,et al.  Zeitschrift für Philosophie und philosophische Kritik , 2022 .

[12]  B. Webber,et al.  Elements of Discourse Understanding , 1983 .

[13]  Gilbert Harman,et al.  Semantics of natural language , 2004, Synthese.

[14]  M. Davidson.  Direct reference and singular propositions , 2000 .

[15]  S. Weidenschilling,et al.  A plurality of worlds , 1991, Nature.

[16]  J. Mill.  A system of logic, ratiocinative and inductive : being a connected view of the principles of evidence, and the methods of scientific investigation. , 2011 .

[17]  H. Abbott.  The Cambridge Introduction to Narrative , 2020 .

[18]  David Lewis.  Counterpart Theory and Quantified Modal Logic , 1968 .

[19]  S. Neale,et al.  Indefinite descriptions: In defense of russell , 1991 .

[20]  Jaakko Hintikka,et al.  Approaches to natural language : proceedings of the 1970 Stanford workshop on grammar and semantics , 1973 .

[21]  R. Montague.  Formal philosophy; selected papers of Richard Montague , 1974 .

[22]  Stuart Brock,et al.  Fictionalism about Fictional Characters , 2002 .

[23]  S. Soames.  Direct Reference, Propositional Attitudes, and Semantic Content , 1987 .

[24]  John B. Carroll,et al.  Language, Thought, and Reality (Selected Writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf). , 1957 .

[25]  Maria Aloni,et al.  Individual Concepts in Modal Predicate Logic , 2005, J. Philos. Log..

[26]  Marga Reimer,et al.  Donnellan’s distinction/Kripke’s test , 1998 .

[27]  Amie L. Thomasson.  Fiction and metaphysics , 1998 .

[28]  Nathan Salmón.  Frege's Puzzle , 1986 .

[29]  A. Avramides.  Studies in the Way of Words , 1992 .

[30]  Paul Elbourne,et al.  Demonstratives as individual concepts , 2008 .

[31]  Richard Montague,et al.  The Proper Treatment of Quantification in Ordinary English , 1973 .

[32]  B. Russell.  Knowledge by Acquaintance and Knowledge by Description , 2007 .

[33]  Ivan A. Sag,et al.  Referential and quantificational indefinites , 1982 .

[34]  Stuart Brock.  The ubiquitous problem of empty names , 2004 .

[35]  G. Frege.  Über Sinn und Bedeutung , 1892 .

[36]  B. Russell.  V.—Knowledge by Acquaintance and Knowledge by Description , 1911 .

[37]  K. Lambert.  Philosophical Problems in Logic , 1970 .

[38]  Keith S. Donnellan,et al.  Speaker References, Descriptions and Anaphora , 1978 .

[39]  David Braun,et al.  Empty Names, Fictional Names, Mythical Names , 2005 .

[40]  Keith S. Donnellan.  Proper names and identifying descriptions , 1970, Synthese.

[41]  C. Copeland.  Truth or Fiction , 2011 .

[42]  S. Soames.  Beyond Rigidity: The Unfinished Semantic Agenda of Naming and Necessity , 2002 .

[43]  John Perry,et al.  DIRECT REFERENCE AND ASCRIPTIONS OF BELIEF , 2004 .

[44]  G. M. Wilson,et al.  Reference and Pronominal Descriptions , 1991 .

[45]  H. Feigl,et al.  Minnesota studies in the philosophy of science , 1956 .

[46]  Saul A. Kripke,et al.  SPEAKER'S REFERENCE and SEMANTIC REFERENCE , 1977 .

[47]  Michael Ruisdael Bennett,et al.  Some extensions of a montague fragment of English , 1974 .

[48]  Howard K. Wettstein,et al.  Themes from Kaplan , 1989 .

[49]  H. Wettstein.  Demonstrative reference and definite descriptions , 1981 .

[50]  J. Hintikka.  On denoting what? , 2005, Synthese.

[51]  Nathan Salmon,et al.  Reference And Essence , 1981 .

[52]  Saul A. Kripke,et al.  Naming and Necessity , 1980 .

[53]  Fred Adams,et al.  The semantics of fictional names , 1997 .

[54]  M. Black,et al.  Translations from the philosophical writings of Gottlob Frege , 1953 .

[55]  E. Nagel.  Meaning and Necessity. A Study in Semantics and Modal Logic , 1948 .

[56]  Östen Dahl.  The Role of Deduction Rules in Semantics , 1988, J. Semant..

[57]  Gary Ostertag.  Definite descriptions : a reader , 1998 .

[58]  Jeffrey C. King.  Are indefinite descriptions ambiguous? , 1988 .

[59]  Maria Aloni,et al.  A Formal Treatment of the Pragmatics of Questions and Attitudes* , 2005 .

[60]  P. Unger,et al.  Semantics and Philosophy , 1974 .

[61]  B. Russell,et al.  Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy , 1920, The Mathematical Gazette.

[62]  Paul D. Elbourne.  Situations and individuals , 2005 .

[63]  F. Adams,et al.  Vacuous Singular Terms , 1994 .

[64]  Steven Davis.  Pragmatics : a reader , 1991 .

[65]  Siobhan Chapman.  Logic and Conversation , 2005 .