An introduction to the philosophy of language

An Introduction to the Philosophy of Language

Volumn , Issue , 2006, Pages 1-326

  Morris, Michael ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SUSSEX   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84924199021     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511801464     Document Type: Book

References (188)

1. J. Locke, An Essay concerning Human Understanding, ed. P. Nidditch (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1975), iii, ii, 1
2. T. Hobbes, Leviathan, ed. J. Plamenatz (Glasgow: Collins, 1962).
3. T. Hobbes, Leviathan, p. 143.
4. M. Ayers, Locke: Epistemology and Ontology (London: Routledge, 1991).
5. N. Kretzmann, ‘The Main Thesis of Locke’s Semantic Theory’, Philosophical Review, 77 (1968), pp. 175–96.
6. I. Hacking, Why Does Language Matter to Philosophy? (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975).
7. E. J. Ashworth, ‘Locke on Language’, Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 14 (1984), pp. 45–73.
8. E. J. Lowe, Locke on Human Understanding (London: Routledge, 1995).
9. L. Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations, 3rd edn (Oxford: Blackwell, 2001), § 293.
10. M. Gibson, From Naming to Saying: The Unity of the Proposition (Oxford: Blackwell, 2004).
11. E. J. Lowe, Locke on Human Understanding (London: Routledge, 1995).
12. N. Kretzmann, ‘The Main Thesis of Locke’s Semantic Theory’, Philosophical Review, 77 (1968), pp. 175–96.
13. E. J. Ashworth, ‘Locke on Language’, Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 14 (1984), pp. 45–73.
14. E. Husserl, Logical Investigations, trans. J. N. Findlay (London: Routledge, 2001), vol. 1.
15. G. Frege, Foundations of Arithmetic, vi.
16. G. Frege, The Foundations of Arithmetic, trans. J. L. Austin (Oxford: Blackwell, 1980), x.
17. Michael Dummett, Frege: Philosophy of Language (London: Duckworth, 1973).
18. G. Frege, Begriffs chrift, eine der arithmetischen nachgebildete Formalsprache des reinen Denkens (Halle, 1879).
19. J. van Heijenoort, ed., From Frege to Go¨del: A Source Book in Mathematical Logic, 1879–1931 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1967).
20. G. Frege, Collected Papers on Mathematics, Logic, and Philosophy, ed. B. McGuinness (Oxford: Blackwell, 1984).
21. M. Dummett, Frege: Philosophy of Language, ch. 7.
22. M. Furth, ‘Two Types of Denotation’, in N. Rescher, ed., Studies in Logical Theory (Oxford:Blackwell, 1968), pp. 9–45.
23. S. Neale, Facing Facts (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001).
24. G. Frege, Begriffsschrift (Halle, 1879), section 8.
25. G. Frege, Philosophical and Mathematical Correspondence, eds. G. Gabriel, H. Hermes, F. Kambartel, C. Thiel, and A. Veraart, abridged for the English edition by B. McGunness (Oxford: Blackwell, 1980), p. 80.
26. Thus Frege: ‘We say a sentence expresses a thought’ (‘Thoughts’, in his Collected Papers, p. 354).
27. G. Evans, The Varieties of Reference (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1982), p. 19.
28. David Bell, ‘How “Russellian” was Frege?’, Mind, 99 (1990), p. 275.
29. Davidson, a. in his ‘On Saying That’, in his Inquiries into Truth and Interpretation (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1984), pp. 93–108.
30. These points are emphasized in Frege’s late paper, ‘Thoughts’, in his Collected Papers, pp. 351–72.
31. Dummett a., Frege: Philosophy of Language, p.2.
32. G. Frege, Posthumous Writings, eds. J. Hermes, F. Kambartel, and F. Kaulbach (Oxford: Blackwell, 1979), p. 130.
33. G. Frege Understanding Demonstratives’, in his Collected Papers (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985), pp. 291–321.
34. D. Bell, ‘How “Russellian” was Frege?’, p. 273.
35. G. Frege, Philosophical and Mathematical Correspondence, G. Gabriel, H. Hermes, F. Kambartel, C. Thiel, and A. Veraart, eds., abridged by B. McGuinness, trans. H. Kaal (Oxford: Blackwell, 1980), p. 169.
36. Alexius Meinong, ‘U¨ ber Gegenstandstheorie’, in Meinong (ed.) Untersuchungen zur Gegenstandtheorie und Psychologie (Leipzig: Barth, 1904).
37. R. Chisholm, ed., Realism and the Background of Phenomenology (Glencoe, II: Free Press, 1960), pp. 76–117.
38. B. Russell, Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy, 2nd edn (London: George Allen and Unwin, 1920), p. 169.
39. Russell, a. ‘On Denoting’, pp. 488–9.
40. P. F. Strawson, ‘On Referring’, Mind, 59 (1950), pp. 320–44.
41. M. Ramachandran, ‘A Strawsonian Objection to Russell’s Theory of Descriptions’, Analysis, 53 (1993), pp. 209–12.
42. W. Lycan, Philosophy of Language (London: Routledge, 2000), p. 23.
43. Russell says, ‘Thus when we say “x was the father of Charles ii” we not only assert that x had a certain relation to Charles ii, but also that nothing else had this relation’: ‘On Denoting’, pp. 481–2.
44. Strawson says, ‘To say, “The King of France is wise” is, in some sense of “imply” to imply that there is a King of France: ‘On Referring’, p. 330.
45. G. Frege, ‘On Sense and Meaning’, in his Collected Papers on Mathematics, Logic, and Philosophy, ed. B. McGuinness (Oxford: Blackwell, 1984), p. 168.
46. K. Donnellan, ‘Reference and Definite Descriptions’, Philosophical Review, 75 (1966), pp. 281–304.
47. S. Neale, Descriptions, p. 27.
48. M. Sainsbury, Russell (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1979), pp. 120–1.
49. S. Kripke, ‘Speaker’s Reference and Semantic Reference’, in P. French, T. Uehling, and H. Wettstein, eds., Contemporary Perspectives in the Philosophy of Language (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press,1977), pp. 6–27.
50. B. Russell, ‘Mr Strawson on Referring’, Mind, 66 (1957), pp. 387–8.
51. N. Salmon, Frege’s Puzzle (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press,1986).
52. S. Soames, Beyond Rigidity: The Unfinished Semantic Agenda of Naming and Necessity (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002).
53. Russell, a. ‘The Philosophy of Logical Atomism’, in B. Russell, Logic and Knowledge, ed. R. Marsh (London: George Allen and Unwin, 1956), p. 243.
54. Russell, a. ‘The Philosophy of Logical Atomism’, p. 201.
55. Russell, a. Principles of Mathematics, 2nd edn (London: George Allen and Unwin, 1937), § 51, p. 47.
56. J. Barwise and J. Perry, Situations and Attitudes (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1983).
57. J. S. Mill, A System of Logic (London: Longmans, Green, Reader, and Dyer, 1875), i, ii, 5, 5.
58. John R. Searle, ‘Proper Names’, Mind, 67 (1958), pp. 166–73.
59. D. Davidson and G. Harman, eds., Semantics of Natural Language (Dordrecht: Reidel,1972), pp. 253–355.
60. A. D. Smith, ‘Rigidity and Scope’, Mind, 93 (1984), p. 180.
61. D. Kaplan, ‘Afterthoughts’, in J. Almog, J. Perry, and H. Wettstein, eds., Themes from Kaplan (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989), pp. 569–71.
62. D. Kaplan ‘Bob and Carol and Ted and Alice’, in J. Hintikka, J. Moravcsik, and P. Suppes, eds., Approaches to Natural Language (Dordrecht: Reidel, 1973).
63. G. McCulloch, The Game of the Name (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989), pp. 101–11.
64. G. McCulloch Naming and Necessity, pp. 10–15.
65. S. Soames, Beyond Rigidity (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), pp. 25–39.
66. K. Bach, Thought and Reference (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987), chs. 7 and 8.
67. K. Bach ‘Giorgione was So-Called because of his Name’, Philosophical Perspectives, 16 (2002), pp. 73–103.
68. S. Soames, Beyond Rigidity, pp. 48–9.
69. David Kaplan ‘Afterthoughts’, pp. 568–9.
70. Smith, a. ‘Rigidity and Scope’, p. 190.
71. G. Evans, The Varieties of Reference (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1984).
72. J. McDowell, ‘De Re Senses’, Philosophical Quarterly,34 (1984), pp. 283–94.
73. David Bell, ‘How “Russellian” was Frege?’, Mind, 99 (1990), pp. 267–77.
74. J. Locke, Essay Concerning Human Understanding, ed. P. Nidditch (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1975), iii, vi, 2.
75. Putnam, a.‘Meaning and Reference’, p. 704.
76. Putnam, a.‘Naming and Necessity, pp. 120–1.
77. Putnam, a.‘Meaning and Reference’, pp. 700–2.
78. David Smith ‘Natural Kind Terms: A Neo-Lockean Theory’, European Journal of Philosophy, 13 (2005), pp. 70–88.
79. David Smith ‘purely referential’ and the ‘non-referential’ in Quine’s Word and Object (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1960), pp. 142–3.
80. D. Føllesdal, ‘Quine on Modality’, in R. Gibson, ed., The Cambridge Companion to Quine (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004).
81. S. Neale, Facing Facts (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001).
82. David Wiggins, in his Sameness and Substance Renewed (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001).
83. David Wiggins ‘Two Dogmas of Empiricism’, in his From a Logical Point of View, 2nd edn (New York: Harper and Row, 1961), pp. 20–46.
84. A. Church, ‘On Carnap’s Analysis of Statements of Assertion and Belief’, Analysis, 10 (1950), pp. 97–9.
85. J. Perry, ‘The Problem of the Essential Indexical’, Noûs, 13 (1979), pp. 3–21.
86. J. S. Mill, A System of Logic (London: Longmans, Green, Reader, and Dyer, 1875), i, ii, 5, 5.
87. S. Kripke, ‘A Puzzle about Belief’, n. 36.
88. G. Evans, The Varieties of Reference (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1982), p. 19.
89. L. Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1922), p. x.
90. J. Barwise and J. Perry, Situations and Attitudes (Cambridge, MA:MIT Press, 1983).
91. N. Salmon, Frege’s Puzzle (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1986)
92. S. Soames, Beyond Rigidity: The Unfinished Semantic Agenda of Naming and Necessity (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002).
93. D. Davidson, ‘On Saying That’, p. 108.
94. D. Davidson ‘Content and Context: The Paratactic Theory Revisited and Revised’, Mind, 102 (1993), pp. 429–54.
95. Ian McFetridge,‘Propositions and Davidson’s Account of Indirect Discourse’, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 76 (1975), pp. 131–45.
96. S. Schiffer, Remnants of Meaning (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1987), pp. 126–37.
97. T. Burge, ‘On Davidson’s “Saying That”’, in E. Lepore, ed., Truth and Interpretation: Perspectives on the Philosophy of Donald Davidson (Oxford: Blackwell, 1986), pp. 190–208.
98. T. Burge ‘On Denoting’, Mind, 14 (1905), pp. 479–93.
99. Russell, a. Principles of Mathematics, 2nd edn (London: George Allen and Unwin,1937), § 51, p. 47.
100. Frege, a. ‘U¨ ber Sinn und Bedeutung’, Zeitung fu¨ r Philosophie und philosophische Kritik, 100 (1892), p. 35.
101. S. Neale, Facing Facts (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001).
102. F. H. Bradley Appearance and Reality (Oxford: Oxford University Press), p. 18.
103. F. H. Bradley Inquiries into Truth and Interpretation, p. 23.
104. Davidson makes ‘Moods and Performances’, in his Inquiries into Truth and Interpretation, pp. 109–21.
105. M. Platts, Ways of Meaning (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1979).
106. W. V. Quine, ‘Ontological Relativity’, in his Ontological Relativity and Other Essays (New York: Columbia University Press, 1969), p. 46.
107. W. V. Quine ‘Radical Interpretation’, p. 129.
108. W. V. Quine Truth and Meaning’, Inquiries into Truth and Interpretation, p. 27.
109. W. V. Quine ‘On Saying That’, Inquiries into Truth and Interpretation, p. 101.
110. W. V. Quine ‘optimize’ is used in ‘Radical Interpretation’, p. 137.
111. W. V. Quine Thought and Talk’, p. 169.
112. W. V. Quine Belief and the Basis of Meaning’, p. 144.
113. M. Dummett, ‘What is a Theory of Meaning? (i)’ and ‘What is a Theory of Meaning? (ii)’, both in his The Seas of Language (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993).
114. B. Loar, ‘Two Theories of Meaning’, in G. Evans and J. McDowell, eds., Truth and Meaning (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1976), pp. 138–61.
115. B. Loar ‘Reply to Foster’, Inquiries into Truth and Interpretation, p. 171.
116. B. Loar in ‘Theories of Meaning and Learnable Languages’, Inquiries into Truth and Interpretation, pp. 3–16.
117. R. Larson and G. Segal, Knowledge of Meaning (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1995), pp. 56–62.
118. R. Larson and G. Segal Aspects of the Theory of Syntax (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1965).
119. R. Larson and G. Segal Larson and Segal, Knowledge of Meaning, pp. 542–53.
120. R. Larson and G. Segal ‘Language and Problems of Knowledge’, in A. P. Martinich, ed., Philosophy of Language, 4th edn (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), pp. 581–99.
121. A. George, ‘Whose Language is it anyway? Some Notes on Idiolects’, Philosophical Quarterly, 40 (1990), pp. 275–98.
122. D. Wiggins, ‘Languages as Social Objects’, Philosophy, 72 (1997), pp. 499–524.
123. D. Wiggins ‘A Nice Derangement of Epitaphs’, in E. Lepore, ed., Truth and Interpretation: Perspectives on the Philosophy of Donald Davidson (Oxford: Blackwell, 1986), pp. 433–46.
124. D. Wiggins ‘On the Very Idea of a Conceptual Scheme’, Inquiries into Truth and Interpretation, pp. 183–98
125. W. V. Quine, ‘Two Dogmas of Empiricism’, in his From a Logical Point of View, 2nd edn (New York: Harper and Row, 1961), pp. 20–46.
126. W.V. Quine The Philosophical Review, 60 (1951), pp. (20–43).
127. Vienna Circle, who were heavily influenced by Ludwig Wittgenstein’s Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus (London: Routledge, 1922).
128. Bertrand Russell, in ‘The Philosophy of Logical Atomism’, reprinted in B. Russell, ed. R. Marsh, Logic and Knowledge (London: Allen and Unwin, 1956), pp. 177–281.
129. R. George (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1967).
130. A. J. Ayer, particularly in his Language, Truth and Logic (London: Gollancz, 1936).
131. D. Hume, Enquiry concerning Human Understanding, iv, 1.
132. Rudolf Carnap, in ‘The Elimination of Metaphysics Through Logical Analysis of Language’, in A. J. Ayer, ed., Logical Positivism (Glencoe, IL: The Free Press), pp. 60–81.
133. P. Duhem, The Aim and Structure of Physical Theory, trans. by P. Wiener (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1954).
134. D. Davidson, ‘The Inscrutability of Reference’, in his Inquiries into Truth and Interpretation (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1984), pp. 227–41.
135. D. Davidson ‘On the Reasons for Indeterminacy of Translation’, Journal of Philosophy, 67 (1970), p. 183.
136. D. Davidson ‘On the Reasons for Indeterminacy of Translation’, p. 183.
137. D. Davidson. Meaning and Force: The Pragmatics of Performative Utterances (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981), pp. 70–2.
138. D. Davidson How to Do Things with Words, p. 57.
139. D. Davidson, ‘On Saying That’, Inquiries into Truth and Interpretation (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1984), p. 94.
140. K. Bach and R. M. Harnish, Linguistic Communication and Speech Acts (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1979), pp. 203–9.
141. K. Bach and R. M. Harnish ‘Truth’, Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume, 24 (1950), pp. 111–29.
142. R. M. Sainsbury, Paradoxes, 2nd edn (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995).
143. Stephen Barker, Renewing Meaning: A Speech-Act Theoretic Approach (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004).
144. Stephen Barker ‘Truth and Meaning’, in his Inquiries into Truth and Interpretation (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1984), pp. 17–36.
145. William Alston in his Illocutionary Acts and Sentence Meaning (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2000).
146. P. F. Strawson, ‘Intention and Convention in Speech Acts’, Philosophical Review, 73 (1964), pp. 439–60.
147. S. Schiffer, Meaning (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1972).
148. H. P. Grice, ‘Meaning Revisited’, in his Studies in the Ways of Words, pp. 283–303.
149. David Lewis, in his ‘Languages and Language’, in K. Gunderson, ed., Language, Mind and Knowledge (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1975), pp. 3–35.
150. G. Harman, Review of Meaning, by Stephen Schiffer, Journal of Philosophy, 71 (1974), pp. 224–9.
151. D. Lewis, Convention (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1969).
152. S. Schiffer, Meaning, ch 5.
153. D. Davidson, ‘A Nice Derangement of Epitaphs’, in E. Lepore, ed., Truth and Interpretation: Perspectives on the Philosophy of Donald Davidson (Oxford: Blackwell, 1986), pp. 433–46.
154. R. B. Sheridan, The Rivals, Act 3, Scene 3.
155. R. B. Sheridan ‘Meaning Revisited’, p. 298–9.
156. M. Platts, Ways of Meaning (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1979), pp. 229 ff.
157. B. Loar, ‘Two Theories of Meaning’, in G. Evans and J. McDowell, eds., Truth and Meaning: Essays in Semantics (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1976), pp. 138–61.
158. C. Peacocke,‘Truth Definitions and Actual Languages’, in the same volume, pp. 162–88.
159. C. Peacocke ‘Reality without Reference’, in his Inquiries into Truth and Interpretation (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1984), pp. 215–25.
160. P. Ziff, ‘On H. P. Grice’s Account of Meaning’, Analysis, 28 (1967), pp. 1–8.
161. L. Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations, i. 510.
162. A. Avramides, Meaning and Mind (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1989), p. 74.
163. Grice, a. ‘Utterer’s Meaning and Intentions’, pp. 161.
164. Schiffer, a. Meaning, pp. 28.
165. Ruth Millikan, Language, Thought, and Other Biological Categories (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1984).
166. Jerry Fodor, ‘A Theory of Content I’, in his A Theory of Content (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1990), p. 79.
167. R. Fogelin, Wittgenstein, 2nd edn (London: Routledge, 1987).
168. Kripke, a. Wittgenstein on Rules and Private Language, p.5.
169. Kripke, a. Wittgenstein, p.5.
170. Kripke, a. ‘What is a Theory of Meaning? I’ and ‘What is a Theory of Meaning? ii’, both reprinted in his The Seas of Language (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993).
171. Kripke, a. Wittgenstein, p. 89.
172. J. Zalabardo, ‘Kripke’s Normativity Argument’, Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 27 (1997), pp. 467–88.
173. D. Hume, A Treatise of Human Nature, iii, i, 1, § 27.
174. R. Millikan, Language, Thought, and Other Biological Categories (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1984).
175. J. Fodor, ‘A Theory of Content I’, in his A Theory of Content (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1990), p. 79.
176. J. Fodor Hoverflies, and the Kripke-Wittgenstein Paradox’, The Philosophical Review, 99, 3. (1990), pp. 323–53.
177. C. McGinn, Wittgenstein on Meaning (Oxford: Blackwell, 1984), pp. 160–1.
178. J. McDowell, ‘Wittgenstein on Following a Rule’, Synthèse, 58 (1984) pp. 325–63.
179. John McDowell, Mind, Value, andReality and Meaning, Knowledge, and Reality (both Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1998).
180. John McDowell Rails to Infinity: Essays on Themes from Wittgenstein’s Philosophical Investigations (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2001).
181. P. M. S. Hacker ‘Philosophy’, in H-J. Glock, ed., Wittgenstein: A Critical Reader (Oxford: Blackwell, 2001), pp. 322–47.
182. A. W. Moore, Points of View (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997).
183. Michael Forster, Wittgenstein on the Arbitrariness of Grammar (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2004).
184. Kripke, a. Naming and Necessity, p. 93.
185. M. Burnyeat, ‘Wittgenstein and Augustine De Magistro’, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Supplementary Volume, 61 (1987), pp. 1–24.
186. D. Lee, ed., Wittgenstein’s Lectures: Cambridge 1930–1932 (Oxford: Blackwell, 1980), p. 86.
187. D. Lee Remarks on Frazer’s Golden Bough’, in L. Wittgenstein, Philosophical Occasions 1912–1951, eds. J. Klagge and A. Nordmann (Indianapolis: Hackett, 1993), pp. 118–55.
188. L. Wittgenstein, Lectures and Conversations on Aesthetics, Psychology and Religious Belief, ed. C. Barrett (Oxford: Blackwell, 1966), pp. 53–72.