Logical Studies

The Semantics of Complex Demonstratives Problems And Approaches

Document Type : Research

Authors

Mohammad Yazdani 1
Alireza dastafshan 2

1 Institute for Humanities and Cultural Studies,Tehran,Iran

2 Faculty of Humanities, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran

Abstract
Complex demonstratives are linguistic expressions of the form "that F", that result from combining demonstrative pronouns with simple or complex common noun phrases. There are two well-known theories about the semantic behavior of complex demonstratives: the first is the direct reference theory and the second is the quantificational theory. According to direct reference theory, complex demonstratives are referring terms and their contents, in demonstrative use, are individuals, and 'f' contributes to fixing the referent of "that F" but contributes nothing to the semantic content of the containing sentence. By contrast, quantificational theory treats complex demonstratives as quantifier phrases, and holds that a two-place relation between properties is contributed to the proposition expressed by the sentence containing the complex demonstrative. This theory claims to account for all sorts of uses of complex demonstratives, such as, demonstrative, NDNS, QI, bound-variable and anaphoric, which have been used by the defenders of this theory to pose objections to the direct reference theory. Yet, direct reference theorists not only can reply to these objections, but also present problems involving given uses in modal contexts and other contexts against quantificational theory, that such contexts can raise serious difficulties for quantificational theory. Altogether, it seems the direct reference theory presents more intuitive explanation about the complex demonstratives

Keywords

complex demonstratives
direct reference theory
quantificational theory
content
referent
1-    حجّتی، سید محمد علی، (1384)، "دلالت شناسی نمایه­ای"، فصلنامه اندیشه دینی، ش17، (صص:25-107)
2-    Borg, E. (2000). "Complex demonstratives". Philosophical Studies, 97, 229–249.
3-    Braun, D. (1993). "Empty names". Nous, 27, 449–469.
4-    Braun, D. (1994). "Structured characters and complex demonstratives" . Philosophical Studies, 74, 193–219.
5-    Braun,D.(2001) "Indexicals". The Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy , Edvard N. Zalta (ed.), URL=http://plato.stanford.edu/archives /fall2001 /entries/indexicals/.
6-    Braun, D. (2005). "Empty names, fictional names, mythical names". Nous, 39, 596–631.
7-    Braun, D. (2007). "Problems for a quantificational theory of complex demonstratives". Philosophical Studies, 140, 335–358
8-    Braun, D. (2008a). "Complex demonstratives and their singular contents". Linguistics and Philosophy, 31, 57–99
9-    Braun, D. (2008b)."Persisting problems for a quantificational theory of complex demonstratives". Philosophical Studies, 141, 243–262
10-  Everett, A. (2003). "EMPTY NAMES AND ‘GAPPY’ PROPOSITIONS". Philosophical Studies 116, 1–36.
11-  Johnson, K., and Lepore, E. (2002). "Does Syntax Reveal Semantics? A Case Study of Complex Demonstratives". Philosophical Perspectives, 16, 707–34.
12-  Kaplan, D. (1989). "Demonstratives". In J. Almog, J. Perry, & H. Wettstein (Eds.), Themes from Kaplan (pp. 481–563). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
13-  King, Jeffrey C. (1999). "Are Complex 'That' Phrases Devices of Direct Reference?'' Nous 33, 155-182.
14-  King, Jeffrey (2001). Complex demonstratives: A quantificational account. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
15-  King, J. (2008a). "Complex demonstratives, QI uses, and direct reference". The Philosophical Review, 117, 99–117.
16-  King, J. (2008b). "Complex demonstratives as quantifiers: Objections and replies". Philosophical Studies, 141,209–242.
17-  Lepore, E., & Ludwig, K. (2000). "The semantics and pragmatics of complex demonstratives". Mind, 109, 199–240.
18-  Lepore, E.,and Ludwig, K. (2007), Donald Davidson’s Truth-Theoretic Semantics. Oxford University Press Inc.
19-  Perry, John (1997). "Indexicals and demonstratives". In Bob Hale, & Crispin Wright (Eds.), A companion to the philosophy of language(pp. 586–612). Oxford: Blackwell.
20-  Salmon, N. (2002). "Demonstrating and necessity". The Philosophical Review, Reprinted in Salmon, N. Content, cognition, and communication (Chap.4) pp.67-99. Oxford: Oxford University Press
21-  Salmon, N. (2006). "A theory of bondage". The Philosophical Review, Reprinted in Salmon, N. Content, cognition, and communication (Chap.6) pp.113-138. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
22-  Salmon, N. (2008). "That F". Philosophical Studies, 141,263–280.
23-  Stanley, J. (2002). "Review of Jeffrey King, Complex demonstratives: A quantificational account". The Philosophical Review, 111, 605–608.
Logical Studies
Volume 9, Issue 2 - Serial Number 18
October 2018
Pages 99-131

Home

Guide for Authors

Submit Manuscript

Reviewers

Contact Us