Direct Reference, Propositional Attitudes, and Semantic Content

On the Social Practice of Indirect Reports

“…The rule relies on the premise that two expressions are pragmatically equivalent if they express the same content (Jaszczolt, 2003) and is reminiscent of Soames's (1989) position, as it has been criticised by Cappelen and Lepore (1997). Of course, the basic rule is incomplete, and I shall attempt to produce better versions of it while considering crucial examples.…”

Who’s afraid of the predicate theory of names?

“…6 The notation and terminology are borrowed from Kaplan 1977. For developments, see Salmon 1986and Soames 1987; for general philosophical comments, see also King 2007. 7 In the sense of 'circumstance' from Kaplan 1977, hereinafter for simplicity's sake merely possible worlds.…”

Names, Masks, and Double Vision

“…The thought is that the propositions expressed by the complement clauses in (21) and (22) are both contradictions, but that whereas the former can be believed under a non-contradictory guise (so to speak) the latter cannot. Thanks to an anonymous referee for drawing my attention to this point of disagreement between the present proposal and that of Soames (1987). The referee notes that there are other binding-related phenomena that may cause trouble for the neo-Kaplanian.…”

“…To the extent that one is able to hear (21) as compatible with Ralph's doxastic coherence, this might be due to an implicit interpretation of the second conjunct as occurring under a separate belief operator. Suffice it to say that the status of reports like (21) is a point on which our Kaplanian view parts company with classic neo-Russellian views like Soames's (1987). …”

“…This result will be objectionable to some. Soames (1987), for example, argues that reports along the lines of (21) do not attribute incoherence to the subject. On his view, incoherence is only attributed to Ralph if the quantifier phrase is given narrow scope under 'believes', as in: (22) Ralph believes that someone i is such that he i is a spy and he i is not a spy.…”