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.,...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Kepa Korta
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