Abstract
Donnellan and Predelli have both responded to accusations that in virtue of involving intentions in their accounts of reference they are committed to ‘Humpty Dumpty’ theories of reference. I examine their responses and argue that they do not succeed in escaping this accusation. Corazza et al. (2002) propose an alternative to Predelli’s account involving linguistic conventions instead of intentions. I argue that Predelli’s responses to Corazza et al. are unsatisfactory and that the intentional theorist is obliged either to accept the Humpty Dumpty conclusion or to adopt the conventional picture, thus relegating intentions to a less significant role in their reference theory.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
J. Almog J. Perry H. Wettstein (Eds) (1989) Themes from Kaplan Oxford University Press Oxford
J. Colterjohn D. MacIntosh (1987) ArticleTitle‘Gerald Vision and Indexicals’ Analysis 47 58–60
E. Corazza W. Fish J. Gorvett (2002) ArticleTitle“Who is I?” Philosophical Studies 107 IssueID1 1–21
Dodgson, C.L. (Lewis Carroll) (1936): Through the Looking Glass, in The Complete Works of Lewis Carroll, NewYork.
K. Donnellan (1966) ArticleTitle“Reference and Definite Descriptions” Philosophical Review 75 IssueID3 281–304
K. Donnellan (1968) ArticleTitle‘Putting Humpty Dumpty Together Again’ Philosophical Review 77 IssueID2 203–215
A.F. MacKay (1968) ArticleTitle‘Mr Donnellan and Humpty Dumpty on Referring’. Philosophical Review 77 IssueID2 197–202
G. Nunberg (1993) ArticleTitle‘Indexicality and Deixis’ Linguistics and Philosophy 16 IssueID1 1–44
S. Predelli (1998) ArticleTitle‘Utterance, Interpretation, and the Logic of Indexicals’ Mind and Language 13 IssueID3 400–414
S. Predelli (1998a) ArticleTitle‘I Am Not Here Now’ Analysis 58 IssueID2 107–15 Occurrence HandleMR1635836
S. Predelli (2002) ArticleTitle‘Intentions, Indexicals and Communication’ Analysis 62 IssueID276 310–316
Kaplan D. (1977): ‘Demonstratives’, in J. Almog, J. Perry and H. Wettstein (eds.) (1989), 481-563.
Kaplan, D. (1989): ‘Afterthoughts’, in J. Almog, J. Perry and H. Wettstein (eds.) (1989): 565-614.
A. Sidelle (1991) ArticleTitle‘The Answering Machine Paradox’ Canadian Journal of Philosophy 81 IssueID4 525–539
Q. Smith (1989) ArticleTitle‘The Multiple Uses of Indexicals’ Synthese 78 167–191
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Gorvett, J. Back through the Looking Glass: On the Relationship between Intentions and Indexicals. Philos Stud 124, 295–312 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-005-7780-2
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-005-7780-2