Beyond Rigidity

Abstract

In Naming and Necessity Saul Kripke undermined descriptive analyses of names by showing that names are rigid designators; thereby telling us what their meanings are not, but not what they are. In Beyond Rigidity, Scott Soames strengthens Kripke's attack, while also providing a positive theory of the semantics and pragmatics of names. Using a new conception of how the meaning of a sentence relates to the information asserted and conveyed by utterances, Soames argues that the meaning of a linguistically simple name is its referent, and that the meaning of a linguistically complex, partially descriptive, name is a compound that includes both its referent and a partial description. After illustrating these analyses with simple sentences containing names, Soames extends them to sentences that report the assertions and beliefs of agents. Appealing again to his new understanding of the relationship between meaning and information asserted and conveyed, Soames attempts to reconcile the central semantic doctrines of Millianism and Russellianism with Fregean intuitions about the information carried by belief and other propositional attitude ascriptions. Finally, Soames investigates the relationship between proper names and natural kind terms, including mass nouns, count nouns, and adjectives functioning as predicates. After showing that natural kind predicates do not fit reasonable definitions of rigidity, he argues that there is no notion of rigid designation for predicates that (1) is a natural extension of the notion of rigidity for singular terms, (2) is such that simple natural kind predicates are standardly rigid whereas many other predicates are not, and (3) plays the role imagined by Kripke in explaining the necessary a posteriori status of theoretical identities like Water is H2O and An object x is hotter than an object y iff x has a higher mean molecular kinetic energy than y. Finally, Soames uses key elements of Kripke's discussion to construct an alternative explanation of the necessary a posteriori character of these sentences that is based on the nondescriptionality of simple natural kind predicates, and the manner in which their meaning and reference is determined.

Are Complex Demonstratives Synonymous with Definite Descriptions?

“…KAPLAN, 1989, SOAMES, 2002. Our unreflective judgments about the literal content of sentences containing complex demonstratives suggest that when f is not an essential property of an object * and the content of f is not part of the content of the nominal 'F', a declarative utterance of 'that F is f ' with the demonstrative used to refer to * does not have a necessary reading (e.g.…”

“…SCHIFFER, 1995;SOAMES, 2002). A synonymy theory should not ascribe implausible propositional attitudes to speakers.…”

General terms and rigidity: another solution to the trivialization problem

“…Finally, some philosophers have adopted what might be called a 'nihilistic stance', according to which the rigid/non-rigid distinction is just a distinction among singular terms, which cannot be extended to general ones (Soames 2002, Schwartz 2002.…”

Talking about Hamlet

“…The realist might respond by adopting a meta-linguistic descriptivist analysis of non-fictional names as well. But such accounts face severe and well known difficulties; for details see Soames 2002 andEverett 2005. 8 Thanks to a referee for bringing this response to my attention.…”