Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-2n9c9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T08:20:26.161Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Direct Reference, Empty Names and Implicature

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2020

Mitchell S. Green
Mitchell S. Green*
Affiliation:
University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA 22904, USA
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Angle Grinder Man removes wheel locks from cars in London. He is something of a folk hero, saving drivers from enormous parking and towing fines, and has succeeded thus far in eluding the authorities. In spite of his cape and lamé tights, he is no fiction; he's a real person. By contrast, Pegasus, Zeus and the like are fictions. None of them is real. In fact, not only is each of them different from the others, all differ from Angle Grinder Man. After all, Zeus throws thunderbolts but doesn't remove boots from cars; unlike Superman, Angle Grinder Man couldn't leap over a parked Mini, and all sightings suggest that he is a human being, not a horse.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Philosophy , Volume 37 , Issue 3 , September 2007, pp. 419 - 447
Copyright
Copyright © The Authors 2007

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Adams, F. and Dietrich, L.. 2004. ‘What's In a (n Empty) Name?’ Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 85: 125–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adams, F. and Stecker, R.. 1994. ‘Vacuous Singular Terms.’ Mind and Language 9: 387–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adams, F. Fuller, G. and Stecker, R.. 1997. ‘The Semantics of Fictional Names.’ Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 78 128–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bach, K. 2006. ‘The Top Ten Misconceptions about Implicature.’ In Birner, B. and Ward, G. ed., Festschrift for Larry Horn. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Bach, K. 2001. ‘You Don't Say?’ Synthese 128: 15–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bach, k. 1999. ‘The Semantics-Pragmatics Distinction: What It Is and Why It Matters.’ in K. Turner, ed., The Semantics/Pragmatics Interface from Different Points of View. Amsterdam: Elsevie.Google Scholar
Bach, K. 1994. ‘Conversational Impliciture.’ Mind and Language 9: 124–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bargh, J.A. and Chartrand, T.L.. 1999. ‘The Unbearable Automaticity of Being.’ American Psychologist 54: 462–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barwise, J. and Perry, J. 1981. ‘Semantic Innocence and Uncompromising Situations.’ Midwest Studies in Philosophy 6: 387–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Belnap, N. Perloff, M. and Xu, M. 2001. Facing the Future: Agents and Causes in an Indeterministic World (Oxford: Clarendon).Google Scholar
Berg, J. 1988. ‘The Pragmatics of Substitutivity.’ Linguistics and Philosophy 11: 355–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braun, D. 1993. ‘Empty Names.’ Noûs 27: 449–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braun, D. 2002. ‘Cognitive Significance, Attitude Ascriptions, and Ways of Believing Propositions.’ Philosophical Studies 108: 65–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braun, D. 2005. ‘Empty Names, Fictional Names, Mythical Names.’ Noûs 39: 596–631.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, W. 1998. Implicature: Intention, Convention and Principle in the Failure of Gricean Theory (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Everett, A. 2000. ‘Referentialism and Empty Names.’ In Everett and Hofweber, eds. Empty Names, Fiction and the Puzzle of Non-existence. Palo Alto: CSLI.Google Scholar
Everett, A. 2003. ‘Empty Names and “Gappy” Propositions.’ Philosophical Studies 116: 1–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, M. forthcoming: ‘Direct Reference, Empty Names, and Ways of Believing.’ In Deutsch and Everett, eds., Essays on Empty Names.Google Scholar
Green, M. 2007. Self-Expression (Oxford: Clarendon).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, M. 2003. ‘Grice's Frown: On Meaning and Expression.’ In Meggle, G. and Plunze, C. eds., Saying, Meaning, Implicating. Leipzig: University of Leipzig Press.Google Scholar
Green, M. 2002. ‘Review of W. Davis, Implicature,’ Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 65: 241–4.Google Scholar
Green, M. 2000. ‘Illocutionary Force and Semantic Content.’ Linguistics & Philosophy 23: 435–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, M. 1999a. ‘Attitude Ascription's Affinity to Measurement.’ International Journal of Philosophical Studies 7: 323–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, M. 1999b. ‘Illocutions, Implicata, and What a Conversation Requires.’ Pragmatics & Cognition, 7: 65–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, M. 1998. ‘Direct Reference and Implicature.’ Philosophical Studies 91: 61–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, M. and Williams, J. 2007. ‘Introduction.’ In Moore's Paradox: New Essays on Belief, Paradox and the First Person (Oxford: Clarendon).Google Scholar
Grice, H.P. 1989. Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Griffiths, P. 1997. What Emotions Really Are. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKay, T. 1981. ‘On Proper Names in Belief Ascriptions.’ Philosophical Studies 39: 287–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pelczar, M. 2001. ‘Names as Tokens and Names as Tools.’ Synthese 128: 133–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pelczar, M. and Rainsbury, J.. 1998. ‘The Indexical Character of Names.’ Synthese 114: 293-317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Recanati, F. 1993. Direct Reference: From Language to Thought (Blackwell).Google Scholar
Recanati, F. 1989. ‘The Pragmatics of What is Said.’ Mind and Language 4: 294–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Recanati, F. 2001. ‘What is Said.’ Synthese 128: 75–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reimer, M. 2001. ‘The Problem of Empty Names.’ Australasian Journal of Philosophy 79: 491–506.Google Scholar
Sainsbury, M. 2005. Reference Without Referents. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salmon, N. 1986. Frege's Puzzle. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Salmon, N. 1989. ‘How to Become a Millian Heir.’ Noûs 23: 211–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salmon, N. 1990. ‘A Millian Heir Rejects the Wages of Sinn.’ In Anderson, C.A. and Owens, J. eds. Propositional Attitudes. Palo Alto: CSLI.Google Scholar
Stainton, R. 2006: Words and Thoughts: Subsentences, Ellipsis, and the Philosophy of Language (Oxford: Clarendon).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soames, S. 1987. ‘Substitutivity.’ In On Being and Saying: Essays for Richard Cartwright. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Soames, S. 1988. ‘Direct Reference, Propositional Attitudes, and Semantic Content.’ In Salmon, and Soames, eds. Propositions and Attitudes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Soames, S. 1995. ‘Beyond Singular Propositions.’ Canadian Journal of Philosophy 25: 515–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soames, S. 2002. Beyond Rigidity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suppes, P. and Zinnes, J. 1963. ‘Basic Measurement Theory.’ In Luce, R.D. Bush, R.B. and Galanter, E. eds. Handbook of Mathematical Psychology, Vol. I. Hoboken: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Taylor, K. 2000. ‘Emptiness Without Compromise.’ In Everett, and Hofweber, eds. Empty Names, Fiction and the Puzzles of Non-Existence. Palo Alto: CSLI.Google Scholar
Tye, M. 1978. ‘The Puzzle of Hesperus and Phosphorus.’ Australasian Journal of Philosophy 56: 219–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Urmson, J.O. 1968. ‘Criteria of Intensionality (symposium with L.J. Cohen).’ Aristotelian Society Proceedings, Supplementary Volume 42: 107–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, T. 2003. Strangers to Ourselves: Understanding the Cognitive Unconscious. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar