The Meaning of Us
In this paper, I offer a content–pluralistic account of the meaning of the first–person plural pronoun «we», building upon John Perry’s (2006, 2012 and forthcoming) view on indexicals and demonstratives. I argue that (i) unlike «I», «we» is not a pure (Kaplan) or automatic (Perry) indexical: i.e.,...
Main Author: | |
---|---|
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Published: |
Disputatio Editions-IAR
2016-12-01
|
Series: | Disputatio |
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | https://studiahumanitatis.eu/ojs/index.php/disputatio/article/view/364 |
id |
doaj-6474b22c278f4b37957ee61b17228082 |
---|---|
record_format |
Article |
spelling |
doaj-6474b22c278f4b37957ee61b172280822021-09-13T11:27:52ZengDisputatio Editions-IARDisputatio2254-06012016-12-015610.5281/zenodo.3551847The Meaning of UsKepa Korta0Universidad del País Vasco (UPV–EHU), Spain In this paper, I offer a content–pluralistic account of the meaning of the first–person plural pronoun «we», building upon John Perry’s (2006, 2012 and forthcoming) view on indexicals and demonstratives. I argue that (i) unlike «I», «we» is not a pure (Kaplan) or automatic (Perry) indexical: i.e., it is an indexical whose referents are partly determined by the speaker’s intention; and that (ii) it’s not wholly discretionary either, since its character or meaning does require that the speaker be part of its referent. In this sense, «we» is not just the plural counterpart of «I», but is closer to «now» and «here». I consider an alternative approach defended by Vallée (1996) that takes the meaning of «we» as reducible to the meaning of «I» plus the different combinations of «you» singular, «he/she», «you» plural, and «they». I argue that, other things being equal, a basic economy principle of meaning favors my approach, and that the cases of co–reference and anaphora posed by Vallée himself and Nunberg (1993) are better explained by it. Besides, I discuss seemingly non referential uses of «we», as in Nunberg’s cases of «we [the condemned prisoners]», in which besides referring to herself the speaker does not seem to have any other particular individual in mind to whom she intends to refer. I contend that my approach provides a natural account of these cases. https://studiahumanitatis.eu/ojs/index.php/disputatio/article/view/364IndexicalsPlural PronounsUtterance-Bound ContentReferential ContentOperative Content |
collection |
DOAJ |
language |
English |
format |
Article |
sources |
DOAJ |
author |
Kepa Korta |
spellingShingle |
Kepa Korta The Meaning of Us Disputatio Indexicals Plural Pronouns Utterance-Bound Content Referential Content Operative Content |
author_facet |
Kepa Korta |
author_sort |
Kepa Korta |
title |
The Meaning of Us |
title_short |
The Meaning of Us |
title_full |
The Meaning of Us |
title_fullStr |
The Meaning of Us |
title_full_unstemmed |
The Meaning of Us |
title_sort |
meaning of us |
publisher |
Disputatio Editions-IAR |
series |
Disputatio |
issn |
2254-0601 |
publishDate |
2016-12-01 |
description |
In this paper, I offer a content–pluralistic account of the meaning of the first–person plural pronoun «we», building upon John Perry’s (2006, 2012 and forthcoming) view on indexicals and demonstratives. I argue that (i) unlike «I», «we» is not a pure (Kaplan) or automatic (Perry) indexical: i.e., it is an indexical whose referents are partly determined by the speaker’s intention; and that (ii) it’s not wholly discretionary either, since its character or meaning does require that the speaker be part of its referent. In this sense, «we» is not just the plural counterpart of «I», but is closer to «now» and «here». I consider an alternative approach defended by Vallée (1996) that takes the meaning of «we» as reducible to the meaning of «I» plus the different combinations of «you» singular, «he/she», «you» plural, and «they». I argue that, other things being equal, a basic economy principle of meaning favors my approach, and that the cases of co–reference and anaphora posed by Vallée himself and Nunberg (1993) are better explained by it. Besides, I discuss seemingly non referential uses of «we», as in Nunberg’s cases of «we [the condemned prisoners]», in which besides referring to herself the speaker does not seem to have any other particular individual in mind to whom she intends to refer. I contend that my approach provides a natural account of these cases.
|
topic |
Indexicals Plural Pronouns Utterance-Bound Content Referential Content Operative Content |
url |
https://studiahumanitatis.eu/ojs/index.php/disputatio/article/view/364 |
work_keys_str_mv |
AT kepakorta themeaningofus AT kepakorta meaningofus |
_version_ |
1717381026851848192 |