back to ideas for this text


Single Idea 10457

[from 'What Does It Take to Refer?' by Kent Bach, in 19. Language / B. Reference / 4. Descriptive Reference / b. Reference by description ]

Full Idea

An embarrassingly simple argument is that most expressions can be used literally but not referentially, no variation in meaning explains this fact, so its meaning is compatible with being non-referential, so no expression is inherently referential.

Gist of Idea

Since most expressions can be used non-referentially, none of them are inherently referential

Source

Kent Bach (What Does It Take to Refer? [2006], 22.2 L2)

Book Reference

'Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Language', ed/tr. Lepore,E/Smith,B [OUP 2008], p.542


A Reaction

I think I have decided that no expression is 'inherently referential', and that it is all pragmatics.