RFA-VIII-2-Stefanov
Download PDF of the article
Author: Gheorghe Ștefanov
Abstract. The strong similarity between the use of ostension and that of a simple
demonstrative to predicate something of an object seems to conflict with equally
strong intuitions according to which, while “this” does usually refer to an object,
the gesture of holding an object in your hand and showing it to an audience does
not refer to the demonstrated object. This paper argues that the problem is
authentic and provides a solution to it. In doing so, a more general thought is
given support by the approach used. Namely, the thought that our abilities to
directly refer to things require some basic referential abilities exhibited in
ostension and the use of demonstratives which, in their turn, rest upon our
abilities to cooperate in performing non-communicative actions on our
environment. Several concepts introduced in order to solve the initial problem
can be used to articulate this thought in more detail.
Keywords: ostension, demonstratives, direct reference, tagging, this-predication.
REFERENCES
Anscombe, G.E.M. 1963. Intention, second edition, Harvard University Press.
Bach, Kent. 1992. “Intentions and Demonstrations”, Analysis, 52:140-146.
Brandom, Robert B. 2008. Between Saying and Doing: Towards an Analytic Pragmatism, Oxford University Press.
Frege, Gottlob. 1956. “The Thought: A Logical Inquiry”, Mind 65 (259):289-311.
Grice, H.P. 1957. “Meaning”, Philosophical Review 66:377-388.
Grice, H.P. 1969. “Utterer’s Meaning and Intention”, Philosophical Review 78(2):147-177.
Kaplan, David. 1977. “Demonstratives”. In Joseph Almog, John Perry & Howard Wettstein (Eds.), 1989, Themes From Kaplan. Oxford University Press, pp. 481-563.
Kaplan, David. 1978. “Dthat”. In Peter Cole (Ed.), Syntax and Semantics. Academic Press, pp. 221-243.
Kaplan, David. 1989. “Afterthoughts”. In Joseph Almog, John Perry & Howard Wettstein (eds.), Themes From Kaplan. Oxford University Press, pp. 565-614.
King, Jeffrey. 2014. “Speaker Intentions in Context”, Noûs, 48(2):219-237.
Kripke, Saul. 1980. Naming and Necessity, Harvard University Press.
Lyons, John. 1977. Semantics, Cambridge University Press.
McGinn, Colin. 1981. “The Mechanism of Reference”, Synthese, 49:157-186.
Nunberg, Geoffrey. 1993. “Indexicality and Deixis”, Linguistics and Philosophy, 16:1-43.
Perry, John. 2009. “Directing Intentions”. In Joseph Almog and Paolo Leonardi (Eds.), The Philosophy of David Kaplan, Oxford University Press, pp. 187-207.
Quine, W.V.O. 1950. “Identity, Ostension, and Hypostasis”, Journal of Philosophy, 47(22):621-633.
Reimer, Marga. 1992. “Three Views of Demonstrative Reference”, Synthese 93:373-402.
Russell, Bertrand. 1940. Inquiry Into Meaning and Truth, Norton.
Russell, Bertrand. 1948. Human Knowledge, Simon and Schuster.
Szufnarowska, J., Rohlfing, K.J., Fawcett, C., & Gredebäck, G. 2014. “Is Ostension anymore than Attention?”, Scientific Reports, 4, 530 4.
Ştefanov, Gheorghe. forthcoming. “Justifying Knowledge Claims after the Private Language Argument”. Forthcoming in Costreie, Sorin (Ed.), Early Analytic Philosophy. New Perspectives on the Tradition, Springer.
Wettstein, Howard. 1984. “How to Bridge the Gap between Meaning and Reference”, Synthese, 84: 63-84.
Wittgenstein, Ludwig. 1953. Philosophische Untersuchungen. Blackwell.