Contents Preface Acknowledgements xv ‘Chapter x Introduction: meaning and reference Overview 2 ‘Meaning and understanding 5 ‘The Referential Theory 4 Summary 8 Questions 8 Notes & Further reading 8 PART I: REFERENCE AND REFERRING 9 (Chapter 2: Definite descriptions 11 Overview 12 Singular terms x3 Russell's Theory of Descriptions 16 Objections to Russell's theory 2 Donnellan’s distinction 26 Anaphora 32 ‘Summary 32 Questions 35, Notes 33 Further reading 34 (Chapter 5: Proper names: the Description Theory 35 Overview 36 Russell's Name Claim 37 Opening objections 40 Searle's “Cluster Theory” 42 Kripke's critique 43, Summary 486 ”Use” theories Overview Objections and some replies Summary Questions Notes Further reading Overview inere abstract entities whose structure canbe statied as if under 4 mcoscope. But Ludwig Witgonstin argued that words and sentences are more like game pieces oF tokens, used to make moves in rule-governed_ conventional social practices. A "meaning” aot abstract object; meaning is a mater ofthe role an expression plays in Jhuman social behavior. To know the expresio’s meaning is justo know how to deploy the expresion appropriately in converstinal stings. ‘Willd Sellar’ version ofthis des makes the act of inferring central it isthe complexity of patterns of inference that allows the “ese” theorist 0 sccommodate long, novel sentences. On this view, one sentence entails nother, not because the two “express” “propositions” one af which is Semehow “contained in” the other bu because itis socially expected that fone’s neighbor would perform the at of inferring the second sentence from the fist, "Use" theories of this ind face to main obstacles: explaining how language we dies from ordinary conventional rule-governed activities, such archers games, that generate no meaning: and explining how, in partic a sentence can mean that so-and-so (asthe French “La neige et Blanche” means tha sow is whit) Robert Brandom has recenily offered {:"Use Theory” that cain to perform these feats. T: Proposition Theory teats sentences and other linguistic items as,we saw in Chapter 2, Ressll’s habit was to write a sentence on A« ‘blciboard and examine (a he contended) the proposition fexpresed by the sentence treating tab an objet of interest in itself and trying to discern ite stractare Ludwig Wigenstein and]. L ‘Astin argued that this pictre of how language works and how i should tre studied is completely wrong, Languages and linguistic ete are not lodless abstract objects which can be stadied like specimens under 2 microscope. Rather language takes the form of behavios, activity, ~ ‘pecially socal practice. Sentences do not have lives of thei own. The things we write on Bsckboards andthe alleged “proposition” they fapres are fairly violent abstractions from the utterings performed by FRuman being in real-world contexts on particular ocasons" And for 3 person o utter something is frst and foremost for that person to do omething. Ii bi of behavior that by convention has goten swept up into rule-govered scl practice. ‘We have already encountered aversion of tis idea in Chapter fritis foom the same perspective that Strawson wielded his several objections against Resell initially stractive Theory of Descriptions. And whether ‘or not we are ultimately convinced by the objection they were Fresh and ftrking snd, to many people sil inritively compelling. That sa good lester of recommendation forthe perspective sell "Use" ina roughly Wirrgensteinian sense Wittgenstein and Austin developed this soil-behavioral ides diferent ways, Here T shall concentrate on a. Witgenseinian view, deferring “Austin’s until Chaper 1a. ay only "a Wittgesteinin view” becuse for reasons chat cannot detain us here, Witegenstein himself opposed systematic theorizing in philosophy, and his followers objected 0 ‘any phrase along the lines of "Wiugenstein’s theory of =." or "Wiktgenstin’s dcrine regarding. I shall merely try to sketch an sscount bese on Wittgenstein’ contributions, without atenbuting that or {any other theory to Witrgensteln himself TE meaning self s mysterious, one way to reduce the mystery is 0 center its domain through something with which we are more dively familia In order to get a handle on meaning et us eink of i from the receiving end, the grasp of meaning oF understanding of linguistic expres Sons, And in order to understand understanding, lt us think of tas the Drovkct of our having been taught our language and as what one leans ‘when one leans a language Ba oon at we ay Laking tat wy, something becomes smimedncly shou tat what soed and taught «ogee fmol och boar Wht you lar when you lear a lnguage tle tae 2 engage Inca Lind of prc, omtrstoal Thavorn aa Rd pray, wat gh the ight wy fo Khve rather popiemae crn kindof naves on it Kds a ‘outro make when Gmc ae appropriate fr dings Ln utp vere by highly complex staf res, ve hog the rls ae rrly salt sal cen fs ik thom op a ‘kal teasing to oy thm without renga wha hey Sedang "i home ute re baci by nity series which rt en ing sae inet hinge Both Witgestin and An inveghed Teg gis ent thers hough ere hl be concen wth 2 postive count of ie” Wigentn se some he hat eth Tig enerily Involves feel rato ete ingle ‘ns and hinge nthe worl Ghoagh of oun eid ot deny tht ere trcrome such rao) Wiper ered they analogy of nga cy othe play- Ingo umes (erorg #0 te phys esman Dyan # Ca ‘igs Undergo Se day agen es wig pat Sold ‘thw forall match ws in poss and "the thoaght it sak in Shin language ne play ganet wah words") angioge ance mateo ins on the Bcd bering the exprenng tonto abt {es eed “propose ng something that people ad ‘Dine hy sgoered and conventional way Lingua civ fevered by rls inmach the may that che playing oe ae governed frie Slocoe inguisic exrenion thc ar ike gue pees Co sider heonen hcp ora took ede bythe hess aes hat fovern is hut poston and sabvequent lege move what makes ig lngh ste way inch uracil moves scoring tothe games convensonly nated sles Soo, ing expe Sis Genin costed by the tact role gvering i cet ‘omer. Siu with expesions Uke “Hell” “Damn” (or “Gad gracious") “Oke dea” "ate me “Amen? Thal” “Spe oe on? (eh ft fsbo fred) at “Ble you” The do ot se Ihnn at thoy doa vie of nding for anything oa ue of ‘Spreng popsions. They ae conventional ees rape, ot ect evining contention. deploingsplogiing, corn Shthig Foeing commiting ocala bt Cog, They at totes rake tht have soll dened fonctnal rl chee ae