Introduction

Speaking of David Kaplan, he once complained that proper names were a nightmare for semantics, and if it were not for their use in calling the kids for dinner, he would as soon junk the whole category. We are quite fond of proper names, since we think they fit well with our approach, and approve of feeding children. In calling the kids for dinner, one illustrates language as technology. Once the habits of responding to ‘Jordan’ and ‘Valerie’ were instilled in Kaplan's children, he had a new way of doing something, a new pragmatic method for getting them to come home for dinner. And Valerie and Jordan had a new epistemic method for determining their father's wishes. It's just as important not to lose sight of the very features of names that make them useful, in considering their semantics and pragmatics.

The classic treatment of names and definite descriptions in philosophy and semantics was inspired by their more straightforward mathematical cousins, individual constants and functional expressions. Because of this, the very features that connect names and descriptions with the practice of planning utterances so as to manage roles in particular conversations have been obscured. When one looks at the way we use these expressions to manage roles, some of the problematic cases become central and straightforward. We'll begin with names. In this chapter we'll also continue to develop our modest psychological vocabulary for describing how role-management works.