Singular reference and pragmatically incomplete meaning

  • Marie DužíEmail author
  • Bjørn Jespersen
  • Pavel Materna
Part of the Logic, Epistemology, and the Unity of Science book series (LEUS, volume 17)


This chapter details how TIL analyses terms like ‘Charles’, ‘π’, ‘the tallest mountain’, ‘the largest prime’, and ‘it’. These terms are self-contained semantic units and must therefore have a construction assigned to them as their meaning; only which one? We finish by outlining how updating works within a dynamic discourse involving singular terms.


Celestial Body Definite Description Embed Clause Interrogative Sentence Discourse Referent 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Kripke, S. 2008. Frege’s theory of sense and reference: Some exegetical notes. Theoria 74: 181–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Castañeda, H.-N. 1989. Thinking, Language, and Experience. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  3. Jespersen, B. 2000. Proper names and primitive senses. In Between Worlds and Words: A Festschrift for Pavel Materna, eds. T. Childers and J. Palomäki, 70–87. Prague: Filosofia.Google Scholar
  4. Geach, P.T. 1962. Reference and Generality. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Kripke, S. 1980. Naming and Necessity, Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  6. Benacerraf, P. 1973. Mathematical truth. Journal of Philosophy 70: 661–679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Soames, S. 2005. Reference and Description: The Case Against Two-Dimensionalism. Princeton and Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Harrah, D. 2002. The logic of questions. In Handbook of Philosophical Logic, vol. 8, eds. D. Gabbay and F. Guenthner, 1–60. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Press.Google Scholar
  9. Sandu, G. 1997. On the theory of anaphora: Dynamic predicate logic vs. game-theoretical semantics. Linguistics and Philosophy 20: 147–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Tichý, P. 1988. The Foundations of Frege’s Logic. Berlin, New York: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
  11. Tichý, P. 2004. Collected Papers in Logic and Philosophy, eds. V. Svoboda, B. Jespersen, and C. Cheyne. Prague: Filosofia, Czech Academy of Sciences; Dunedin: University of Otago Press.Google Scholar
  12. Materna, P. 1998. Concepts and Objects, vol. 63. Acta Philosophica Fennica. Helsinki: Philosophical Society of Finland.Google Scholar
  13. Thomason, R. 1980. A note on syntactical treatments of modality. Synthese 44: 391–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kapitan, T. 1992. I and you, he* and she*. Analysis 52: 125–128.Google Scholar
  15. Kamp, H. and U. Reyle. 1993. From Discourse to Logic: Introduction to Model-Theoretic Semantics of Natural Language, Formal Logic and Discourse Representation Theory. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  16. Fitch, F. 1971. On kinds of utterances. In Language and Human Nature, ed. P. Kurtz, St. Louis: Waren H. Green.Google Scholar
  17. Duží, M. 2004. Intensional logic and the irreducible contrast between de dicto and de re. ProFil 5, 1–34. Google Scholar
  18. Duží, M. and P. Materna. 2005. Logical form. In Essays on the Foundations of Mathematics and Logic 1, ed. G. Sica, 115–153. Monza: Polimetrica International Scientific Publisher.Google Scholar
  19. Jespersen, B. 2010. Hyperintensions and procedural isomorphism: Alternative (½). In The Analytical Way, Proceedings of the 6 th European Congress of Analytic Philosophy, ECAP VI, eds. T. Czarnecki, K. Kijania-Placek, O. Poller, J. Woleński, 299–320. London: College Publications.Google Scholar
  20. Eijck, J. van 2006. Discourse representation theory. In The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, 3, ed. K. Brown, 660–669. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  21. Muskens, R. 1996. Combining Montague semantics and discourse representation. Linguistics and Philosophy 19: 143–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Leonard, H.S. 1959. Interrogatives, imperatives, truth, falsity, and lies. Philosophy of Science 26: 172–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kamp, H. 1981. A theory of truth and semantic representation. In Formal Methods in the Study of Language, Part 1, eds. J. Groenendijk, T. Janssen, and M. Stokhof, 277–322. Amsterdam: Mathematical Center.Google Scholar
  24. Materna, P. 1981. Question-like and non-question-like imperative sentences. Linguistics and Philosophy 4: 393–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Bealer, G. 1982. Quality and Concept. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  26. Bealer, G. 1993. A solution to Frege’s puzzle. Philosophical Perspectives 7: 17–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Materna, P. 2005. Ordinary modalities. Logique et Analyse 48: 57–70.Google Scholar
  28. Hintikka, J. 1991. Paradigms for language theory. In Language, Knowledge and Intentionality: Perspectives on the Philosophy of Jaakko Hintikka, vol. 49, eds. L. Haaparanta, M. Kusch, and I. Niiniluoto, 181–209. Helsinki: Acta Philosophica Fennica.Google Scholar
  29. Bealer, G. 1998. Propositions. Mind 107: 1–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Materna, P., A. Svoboda, and K. Pala. 1976. An ordered-triple theory of language. Brno Studies in English 12: 159–186.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marie Duží
    • 1
    Email author
  • Bjørn Jespersen
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Pavel Materna
    • 4
    • 5
  1. 1.Fac. Electric Engineering and Computer Science, VSB-Technical University OstravaOstravaCzech Republic
  2. 2.Fac. Technology, Policy & Management, Delft University of TechnologyDelftNetherlands
  3. 3.Dept. LogicASCR Prague, Inst. PhilosophyPraha 1Czech Republic
  4. 4.Dept. LogicASCR Praha, Inst. PhilosophyPraha 1Czech Republic
  5. 5.Faculty of Informatics, Faculty of Arts, A. Nováka 1, Masaryk UniversityBrnoCzech Republic

Personalised recommendations