On the Quantified Account of Complex Demonstratives

Journal of the Indian Council of Philosophical Research 33 (3):451-463 (2016)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

This paper argues for a different logical form for complex demonstratives, given that the quantificational account is correct. In itself that is controversial, but two aspects will be assumed. Firstly, there are arguments to believe that complex demonstratives have quantificational uses. Specifically, there are syntactic arguments. Secondly, a uniform semantics is preferable to a semantics of ambiguity. Given this, the proposed logical forms for complex demonstratives that are prevalent do not respect a fundamental property of quantifiers: permutation invariance. The reason for this is the attempt to retain, in the logical forms proposed, the strong intuitions of reference that uses of complex demonstratives display. The paper suggests that the directly referential intuitions surrounding complex demonstratives cannot be taken to be part of the semantics of the expression. There appears to be no need to do so, either. The paper defends the new logical form against various objections.

Links

PhilArchive

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Complex demonstratives, QI uses, and direct reference.Jeffrey C. King - 2008 - Philosophical Review 117 (1):99-117.
WCO, ACD and what they reveal about complex demonstratives.Daniel Altshuler - 2007 - Natural Language Semantics 15 (3):265-277.
Demonstratives without rigidity or ambiguity.Ethan Nowak - 2014 - Linguistics and Philosophy 37 (5):409-436.
Complex demonstratives and their singular contents.David Braun - 2008 - Linguistics and Philosophy 31 (1):57-99.
Complex demonstratives.Emma Borg - 2000 - Philosophical Studies 97 (2):229-249.
Demonstratives qua singular terms.Eros Corazza - 2003 - Erkenntnis 59 (2):263-283.
Reference and Ambiguity in Complex Demonstratives.Geoff Georgi - 2012 - In William P. Kabasenche, Michael O'Rourke & Matthew H. Slater (eds.), Reference and Referring: Topics in Contemporary Philosophy, Volume 10. MIT Press. pp. 357-384.
Demonstratives as individual concepts.Paul Elbourne - 2008 - Linguistics and Philosophy 31 (4):409-466.

Analytics

Added to PP
2018-06-03

Downloads
304 (#63,928)

6 months
68 (#63,379)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Nilanjan Bhowmick
University of Delhi

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Demonstratives: An Essay on the Semantics, Logic, Metaphysics and Epistemology of Demonstratives and other Indexicals.David Kaplan - 1989 - In Joseph Almog, John Perry & Howard Wettstein (eds.), Themes From Kaplan. Oxford University Press. pp. 481-563.
Afterthoughts.David Kaplan - 1989 - In J. Almog, J. Perry & H. Wettstein (eds.), Themes From Kaplan. Oxford University Press. pp. 565-614.
Knowledge of Meaning.Richard Larson & Gabriel Segal - 2000 - Mind 109 (436):960-964.

View all 6 references / Add more references