What Do Natural Kind Predicates Have in Common With Proper Names?

2002 ◽  
pp. 264-288
Author(s):  
Scott Soames
Keyword(s):  
2019 ◽  
pp. 213-220
Author(s):  
Mario Gómez-Torrente

This chapter revisits from a synoptic perspective two of the main themes of the book. First, the critique of descriptivism based on indeterminacy cases and the proposal of mere roughly sufficient conditions for the reference fixing of demonstratives, proper names, and ordinary natural kind nouns. And second, the proposal that Arabic numerals, ordinary natural kind nouns, and adjectives for sensible qualities have, despite popular eliminativist arguments to the contrary, referents of a relatively ordinary nature appropriately determined in subtle ways by their associated reference-fixing conventions. The two themes of the book revisited in these concluding notes are related to an important part of the spirit of Kripke’s work on reference.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Katharine Hamilton

<p>In this thesis I employ the experimental method to inform three important debates within the philosophy of language. These three debates can loosely be characterised as the following: Strawsonianism vs. Russellianism about the meaning of definite descriptions (Chapter 2), Millianism vs. Descriptivism about the meaning of proper names (Chapter 3), and Internalism vs. Externalism about natural kind terms (Chapter 4). To investigate these debates I use surveys to test the intuitions of ordinary language users, that is, non-philosophers, about the meaning of various terms and phrases in natural language. This included New Zealand undergraduate students, students in China, and participants in the US in order to investigate any cross-cultural differences. The results of these three studies indicate substantial variation in the intuitions held among ordinary language users. I use this variation to defend an ambiguity thesis. According to this thesis, some terms and phrases as they occur in natural language (specifically, proper names, natural kind terms, and definite descriptions) have multiple meanings associated them. No one disambiguation is correct outside of a context of utterance. If the ambiguity thesis is accepted, various philosophical puzzles disappear. I will also address a number of objections that face the general program of this thesis.</p>


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Katharine Hamilton

<p>In this thesis I employ the experimental method to inform three important debates within the philosophy of language. These three debates can loosely be characterised as the following: Strawsonianism vs. Russellianism about the meaning of definite descriptions (Chapter 2), Millianism vs. Descriptivism about the meaning of proper names (Chapter 3), and Internalism vs. Externalism about natural kind terms (Chapter 4). To investigate these debates I use surveys to test the intuitions of ordinary language users, that is, non-philosophers, about the meaning of various terms and phrases in natural language. This included New Zealand undergraduate students, students in China, and participants in the US in order to investigate any cross-cultural differences. The results of these three studies indicate substantial variation in the intuitions held among ordinary language users. I use this variation to defend an ambiguity thesis. According to this thesis, some terms and phrases as they occur in natural language (specifically, proper names, natural kind terms, and definite descriptions) have multiple meanings associated them. No one disambiguation is correct outside of a context of utterance. If the ambiguity thesis is accepted, various philosophical puzzles disappear. I will also address a number of objections that face the general program of this thesis.</p>


Author(s):  
David Braun

Names and natural kind terms have long been a major focus of debates about meaning and reference. This article discusses some of the theories and arguments that have appeared in those debates. It is remarkably difficult to say what names are (more exactly, proper names) without making controversial theoretical assumptions. This article does not attempt to do so here. It instead relies on paradigm examples that nearly all theorists would agree are proper names, for instance, ‘Aristotle’, ‘Mark Twain’, ‘London’, ‘Venus’, and ‘Pegasus’. All of the proper names that are discussed in the article are singular nouns that have no syntactic structure. Most of them refer to objects (for instance, people, cities, and planets), but some, such as ‘Pegasus’, apparently do not. The article begins with proper names and the question ‘What is the meaning of a proper name?’ It turns to natural kind terms later.


2020 ◽  
Vol 23 (2) ◽  
pp. 474-497
Author(s):  
Giulio Sciacca

Abstract Some philosophers of biology state that the metaphysical status of biological species is context determined by the use different branches of biology make of their corresponding proper names, so that one and the same biological species can be both an individual and a natural kind. In this paper, I aim to undermine the idea, often associated with the present thesis, according to which the debate about the metaphysical status of biological species should be deflated, since it would be possible to translate every sentence from natural-kind talk to individual-talk and vice versa. I offer a charitable interpretation of the principle grounding such an idea and show how it is in tension with independent theoretical biological notions.


1993 ◽  
Vol 23 (3) ◽  
pp. 389-411 ◽  
Author(s):  
Harry Deutsch

According to the well-known Kripke-Putnam view developed inNaming and Necessityand ‘The Meaning of Meaning’, proper names and ‘natural kind terms’ - words for natural substances, species, and phenomena (‘water’, ‘rose’, ‘light’) - are non-descriptional and rigid. A singular term isrigidif it has the same referent in every possible world (and with respect to other extension-determining parameters, such as the passage of time), and isnon-descriptionalif, roughly speaking, its referent (at a possible world or other parameter) is not secured by purely descriptive conditions analytically tied to the term. Thus, ‘the inventor of bifocals’ is nonrigid and descriptional, while ‘the unique even and prime integer’ is rigid and descriptional, and ‘Noam Chomsky’ is rigid and non-descriptional.


Author(s):  
Mario Gómez-Torrente

How is it that words (such as “Aristotle”) come to stand for the things they stand for (such as Aristotle)? Is the thing that a word stands for, its reference, fully identified or described by conventions known to the users of the word? Or is there a more roundabout relation between the reference of a word and the conventions that determine or fix it? Do words like “water,” “three,” and “red” refer to appropriate things, just as the word “Aristotle” refers to Aristotle? If so, which things are these, and how do they come to be referred to by those words? In Roads to Reference, Mario Gómez-Torrente provides novel answers to these and other questions that have been of traditional interest in the theory of reference. The book introduces a number of cases of apparent indeterminacy of reference for proper names, demonstratives, and natural kind terms, which suggest that reference-fixing conventions for them adopt the form of lists of merely sufficient conditions for reference and reference failure. Arguments are then provided for a new anti-descriptivist picture of those kinds of words, according to which the reference-fixing conventions for them do not describe their reference. The book also defends realist and objectivist accounts of the reference of ordinary natural kind nouns, numerals, and adjectives for sensible qualities. According to these accounts, these words refer, respectively, to “ordinary kinds,” cardinality properties, and properties of membership in intervals of sensible dimensions, and these things are fixed in subtle ways by associated reference-fixing conventions.


2020 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 189-210
Author(s):  
Artemis Alexiadou

This paper discusses the formation of synthetic compounds with proper names. While these are possible in English, Greek disallows such formations. However, earlier stages of the language allowed such compounds, and in the modern language formations of this type are possible as long as they contain heads that are either bound roots or root- derived nominals of Classical Greek origin. The paper builds on the following ingredients: a) proper names are phrases; b) synthetic compounding in Modern Greek involves incorporation, and thus proper names cannot incorporate; c) by contrast, English synthetic compounds involve phrasal movement, and thus proper names can appear within compounds in this language. It is shown that in earlier Greek, proper names had the same status as their English counterparts, hence the possibility of synthetic compounds with proper names. It is further argued that the formations that involve bound/archaic roots are actually cases of either root compounding or root affixation and not synthetic compounds.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document