Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-2n9c9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-14T20:51:33.569Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The semantics of singular terms1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2014

Gordon Matheson
Gordon Matheson*
Affiliation:
University of Southern California
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

There is a distinction within the natural language between those singular terms which designate and those which do not. On the basis of this distinction there arise irregularities both in the assignment to expressions of semantical properties and relations and in the presumed attribution of existence to individuals. Although such irregularities are characteristic of the employment of singular terms, they are not reproduced either for or within the usual formalized languages. Accordingly, we construct a formalized language for which the mentioned irregularities are reproduced — hence, a language which in this respect mirrors more faithfully than is customary the structure of the natural language.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Symbolic Logic , Volume 27 , Issue 4 , December 1962, pp. 439 - 466
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Symbolic Logic 1962

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

Footnotes

1

In this paper ‘singular term’ occurs as an abbreviation for the more exact expression, ‘simple concrete singular term.’ It applies to expressions such as ‘Cicero’ and ‘Pegasus.’ On the other hand, it does not apply to compound expressions such as ‘the author of De Senectute,’ ‘the winged horse which was captured by Bellerophon,’ and ‘the number of the planets.’ Nor does it apply to abstract expressions such as ‘9’, ‘piety,’ and ‘the number of the planets.’ For the general notion of singular term see [15], p. 45; [18], pp. 203–206; [20], pp. 95–96. For the distinction, under divergent terminology, between simple and compound singular terms see [8], p. 3. For the distinction between concrete and abstract expressions see [18], pp. 204–205; [20], p. 118ff.

References

[1] Carnap, Rudolf, Introduction to semantics, Cambridge, Mass., 1946.Google Scholar
[2] Carnap, Rudolf, Meaning and necessity, Chicago, 1947; 2nd ed., 1956.Google Scholar
[3] Carnap, Rudolf, Logical foundations of probability, Chicago, 1950.Google Scholar
[4] Carnap, Rudolf, Meaning postulates, Philosophical studies, Vol. 3 (1952), pp. 65–73. Reprinted in: R. Carnap. Meaning and Necessity, 2nd ed., pp. 222–229.Google Scholar
[5] Carnap, Rudolf, Introduction to symbolic logic and its applications, New York, 1958.Google Scholar
[6] Carnap, Rudolf, Notes on semantics (U.C.L.A., Phil. 261, Spring Semester 1955). Unpublished.Google Scholar
[7] Church, Alonzo, The calculi of lambda-conversion, Princeton, 1941.Google Scholar
[8] Church, Alonzo, Introduction to mathematical logic, Vol. 1, Princeton, 1956.Google Scholar
[9] Flew, Antony (ed.), Essays in conceptual analysis, London and New York, 1956.Google Scholar
[10] Frege, Gottlob, Translations from the philosophical writings, translated by Geach, P. and Black, M.. Oxford, 1952.Google Scholar
[11] Kemeny, John G., Extension of the methods of inductive logic, Philosophical studies, Vol. 3 (1952), pp. 38–42.Google Scholar
[12] Kemeny, John G., A new approach to semantics, Part I, this Journal , Vol. 21 (1956), pp. 1–27.Google Scholar
[13] Leblanc, Hugues and Hailperin, Theodore, Non-designative singular terms, Philosophical review, Vol. 68 (1959), pp. 239–243.Google Scholar
[14] Leonard, Henry S., The logic of existence, Philosophical studies, Vol. 7 (1956), pp. 49–64.Google Scholar
[15] Lewis, C. I., An analysis of knowledge and valuation, La Salle, Ill., 1946.Google Scholar
[16] Martin, R. M., Truth and denotation, Chicago, London and Toronto, 1958.Google Scholar
[17] Matheson, Gordon, The antinomy of designation, Philosophy of science, Vol. 26 (1959), pp. 260–269.Google Scholar
[18] Quine, W. V., Methods of logic, New York, 1950; 2nd ed. 1959.Google Scholar
[19] Quine, W. V., From a logical point of view, Cambridge, Mass., 1953.Google Scholar
[20] Quine, W. V., Word and object, New York and London, 1960.Google Scholar
[21] Russell, Bertrand, Introduction to mathematical philosophy, London and New York, 1919.Google Scholar
[22] Russell, Bertrand, My philosophical development, New York, 1959.Google Scholar
[23] Strawson, P. F., On referring, Mind, Vol. 59 (1950), pp. 320–344. Reprinted in: A. Flew (ed.). Essays in conceptual analysis, pp. 21–52.Google Scholar
[24] Strawson, P. F., Introduction to logical theory, London and New York, 1952.Google Scholar
[25] Strawson, P. F., Individuals, London, 1959.Google Scholar
[26] Tarski, Alfred, Logic, semantics, metamathematics, Oxford, 1956.Google Scholar
[27] Whitehead, Alfred North and Russell, Bertrand, Principia mathematica, vol. I, Cambridge, England, 1910; 2nd ed., 1925.Google Scholar
[28] Wilson, N. L., In defense of proper names against descriptions, Philosophical studies, Vol. 4 (1953), pp. 72–78.Google Scholar