Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-ttngx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-01T12:50:23.647Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Binding into Character

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2020

Joshua Dever
Get access

Abstract

Since Kaplan's “Demonstratives,” it has become common to distinguish between the character and content of an expression, where the content of an expression is what it contributes to “what is said” by sentences containing that expression, and the character gives a rule for determining, in a context, the content of an expression. A tacit assumption of theories of character has been that character is autonomous from content - that semantic evaluation starts with character, adds context, and then derives content. One consequence of this autonomy thesis is that the rules for character can contain no variables bound by content-level operators elsewhere in the sentence. Tacit appeal to this consequence features essentially both in Jason Stanley's recent argument, in “Context and Logical Form,” that all contextual ambiguity must be linked to “elements in the actual syntactic structure of the sentence uttered”, and in my arguments against character-based theories of complex demonstratives in my “Complex Demonstratives.“

Type
Part A: Language
Information
Canadian Journal of Philosophy Supplementary Volume , Volume 30: New Essays in The Philosophy of Language and Mind , 2004 , pp. 29 - 80
Copyright
Copyright © The Authors 2004

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Almog, J.Perry, J. and Wettstein, H. eds. 1989. Themes From Kaplan. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Borg, E. 2000. “Complex Demonstratives.” Philosophical Studies 97: 229-49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braun, D. 1994. “Structured Characters and Complex Demonstratives.“ Philosophical Studies 74: 193–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braun, D. 1995. “What is Character?” Journal of Philosophical Logic 24: 227-40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dever, J. 2001. “Complex Demonstratives.” Linguistics and Philosophy 24:271–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dummett, M. 1973. Frege: Philosophy of Language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Dummett, M. 1981. The Interpretation of Frege's Philosophy. Harvard: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Kaplan, D. 1977. “Demonstratives.” In Almog, et al., 1989, 481–563.Google Scholar
Kaplan, D. 1978. “Dthat.” In Ludlow 1997, 669-92.Google Scholar
Kaplan, D. 1989. “Afterthoughts. In Almog, et al., 1989, 564–614.Google Scholar
Kripke, S. 1980. Naming and Necessity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Ludlow, P. 1997. Readings in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Perry, J. 1986. “Thought Without Representation.” Supplementary Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 60: 137-52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Recanati, F. 1993. Direct Reference. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
Soames, S. 1998. “The Modal Argument: Wide Scope and Rigidified Descriptions.“ Noûs 32: 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sosa, D. 2001. “Rigidity in the Scope of Russell's Theory.” Noûs 35: 1–38.Google Scholar
Stanley, J. 2000. “Context and Logical Form.” Linguistics and Philosophy 24: 391–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar