{"id":6722,"date":"2016-01-16T17:32:11","date_gmt":"2016-01-16T17:32:11","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/2016\/01\/16\/in-what-sense-does-an-indefinite-noun-phrase-refer\/"},"modified":"2016-01-16T17:32:11","modified_gmt":"2016-01-16T17:32:11","slug":"in-what-sense-does-an-indefinite-noun-phrase-refer","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/2016\/01\/16\/in-what-sense-does-an-indefinite-noun-phrase-refer\/","title":{"rendered":"In What Sense Does an Indefinite Noun Phrase Refer?"},"content":{"rendered":"

London Ed propounds a difficulty for our delectation and possible solution:<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

Clearly the difficulty with the intralinguistic theory is its apparent absurdity, but I am trying to turn this around. What can we say about extralinguistic reference?  What actually is<\/em> the extralinguistic theory? You argue that the pronoun \u2018he\u2019 inherits a reference from its antecedent, so that the pronoun does refer extralinguistically, but only per alium<\/em>, not per se<\/em>.<\/span><\/p>\n

Mark 14:51<\/em> And there followed him [Jesus] a certain young man (\u03bd\u03b5\u03b1\u03bd\u03af\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b9\u03c2) , having a linen cloth (\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd\u03b4\u03cc\u03bd\u03b1) cast about his<\/em> naked body; and the young men laid hold on him<\/em>.  14:52 And he<\/em> left the linen cloth, and fled from them naked.<\/span><\/p>\n

So the pronoun \u2018he\u2019 inherits its reference through its antecedent. But the antecedent is the noun phrase \u2018a certain young man\u2019. On your theory, does this refer extralinguistically?  That\u2019s a problem, because indefinite noun phrases traditionally do not refer, indeed that\u2019s the whole point of them. \u2018a certain young man\u2019 translates the Latin \u2018adulescens quidam<\/em>\u2019 which in turn translates the Greek \u2018\u03bd\u03b5\u03b1\u03bd\u03af\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b9\u03c2\u2019. Here \u2018certain\u2019 (Latin quidam<\/em>, Greek \u03c4\u03b9\u03c2) signifies that the speaker knows who he is talking about, but declines to tell the audience who this is. Many commentators have speculated that the man was Mark himself, the author of the gospel, which if true means that \u2018a certain young man\u2019 and the pronouns, could be replaced with \u2018I\u2019, salva veritate<\/em>.  But Mark deliberately does not tell us.<\/span><\/p>\n

So, question 1, in what sense does the indefinite noun phrase refer<\/em>, given that, on the extralinguistic theory, it has to be the primary referring phrase, from which all subsequent back-reference inherits its reference?<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

A. First of all, it is not clear why Ed says, ". . . indefinite noun phrases traditionally do not refer, indeed that\u2019s the whole point of them."  Following Fred Sommers, in traditional formal logic (TFL) as opposed to modern predicate logic (MPL), indefinite noun phrases do<\/em> refer. (See Chapter 3, "Indefinite Reference" of The Logic of Natural Language<\/em>.) Thus the subject terms in 'Some senator is a physician' and 'A physician is running for president' refer, traditionally, to some senator and to a physician.  This may be logically objectionable by Fregean lights but it is surely traditional<\/em>.  That's one quibble.  A second is that it is not clear why Ed says "that's the whole point of them."<\/span><\/p>\n

So the whole point of a tokening of 'a certain young man' is to avoid making an extralinguistic reference?  I don't understand.<\/span><\/p>\n

B.  Ed says there is a problem on my view.  A lover of aporetic polyads, I shall try to massage it into one.  I submit for your solution the following inconsistent pentad:<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

a. There are only two kinds of extralinguistic reference: via logically proper names, including demonstratives and indexicals, and via definite descriptions.<\/span>
b. The extralinguistic reference of a grammatical pronoun used pronominally (as opposed to quantificationally or indexically) piggy-backs on the extralinguistic reference of its antecedent. It is per alium<\/em> not per se<\/em>.<\/span>
c. 'His,' 'him,' and 'he' in the verse from Mark are pronouns used pronominally the antecedent of which is 'a certain young man.'<\/span>
d.  'A certain young man' in the verse from Mark is neither a logically proper name nor a definite description.<\/span>
e.  'A certain young man' in the verse from Mark refers extralinguistically on pain of the sentence of which it is a part being not true.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

The pentad is inconsistent.<\/span><\/p>\n

The middle three limbs strike me as datanic.  So there are two possible solutions.<\/span><\/p>\n

One is (a)-rejection.  Maintain as Sommers does that indefinite descriptions can refer.  This 'solution' bangs up against the critique of Peter Geach and other Fregeans.<\/span><\/p>\n

The other is (e)-rejection.  Deny that there is any extralinguistic reference at all.  This, I think, is Ed's line.  Makes no sense to me, though.<\/span><\/p>\n

I wonder: could Ed be toying with the idea of using the first four limbs as premises in an argument to the conclusion that all reference is intralinguistic?  I hope not.
<\/span><\/p>\n

\nRelated articles<\/legend>\n
\n
\"\"<\/a>Direct and Indirect Reference<\/a><\/div>\n
\"\"<\/a>Peter Geach on Worshipping the Right God<\/a><\/div>\n
\"\"<\/a>Worship, Reference, and Existence: An Aporetic Triad<\/a><\/div>\n
\"\"<\/a>Linking and Plinking<\/a><\/div>\n
\"\"<\/a>An Inferential Semantics for Empty Names?<\/a><\/div>\n
\"\"<\/a>Peter Kreeft on the Gender-Neutral Use of 'He'<\/a><\/div>\n
\"\"<\/a>Must Singular Thoughts be Object-Dependent?<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/fieldset>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

London Ed propounds a difficulty for our delectation and possible solution: Clearly the difficulty with the intralinguistic theory is its apparent absurdity, but I am trying to turn this around. What can we say about extralinguistic reference?  What actually is the extralinguistic theory? You argue that the pronoun \u2018he\u2019 inherits a reference from its antecedent, … Continue reading “In What Sense Does an Indefinite Noun Phrase Refer?”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[21,408,108,166],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-6722","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-aporetics","category-language-philosophy-of","category-logica-docens","category-new-testament"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6722","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=6722"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6722\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6722"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6722"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6722"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}