Abstract
AbstractThis paper reevaluates Kaplan’s (Themes from Kaplan, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 481–563, 1989b) infamous ‘compulsive talker’ objection to Reichenbach’s (Elements of symbolic logic,
AQ1 Macmillan, New York, 1947 )
token-reflexive theory of indexicals. It argues that Kaplan’s objection depends on the modal status of Reichenbachian tokens. On one interpretation, Kaplan’s objection stands. But on another, equally plausible interpretation, the following points hold: (i) Reichenbach’s theory effectively preempts contemporary discussion of rigid definite descriptions, (ii) Kaplan’s own analysis of indexicals in terms of dthat-terms comes extremely close to Reichenbach’s own analysis, and (iii) Kaplan’s ‘compulsive talker’ objection should be rejected.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference25 articles.
1. Bromberger, S. (1989). Types and tokens in linguistics. In A. George (Ed.), Reflections on chomsky (pp. 58–89). Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
2. Bromberger, S. (2011). Comments on Kaplan (1990), on Hawthorne and Lepore, and on the issue. The Journal of Philosophy, 108(9), 486–503.
3. Bromberger, S., & Halle, M. (2000). The ontology of phonology (Revised). In N. Burton-Roberts, P. Carr, & G. J. Docherty (Eds.), Phonological knowledge, conceptual and empirical issues (pp. 19–37). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
4. Elbourne, P. (2008). The argument from binding. Philosophical Perspectives, 22, 89–110.
5. Elbourne, P. (2013). Definite descriptions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.