Russell-Names: An Introduction to Millian Descriptivism

Journal of Philosophical Logic, Dec 2015

This essay studies the semantic properties of what I call Russell-names. Russell-names bear intimate semantic relations with descriptive conditions, in consonance with the main tenets of descriptivism. Yet, they are endowed with the semantic properties attributed to ordinary proper names by Millianism: they are rigid and non-indexical devices of direct reference. This is not an essay in natural language semantics, and remains deliberately neutral with respect to the question whether any among the expressions we ordinarily classify as proper names behave as Russell-names. Its aim is rather that of casting a new light on the traditional debate about descriptivism on the one hand, and, on the other, what is commonly understood as a radically anti-descriptivist approach. From the viewpoint of descriptivism, the conceivability of Russell-names provides welcome relief from the pressure exerted by considerations at odds with a flaccid and/or indexical treatment of proper names. Conversely, from a Millian standpoint, the conceivability of Russell-names indicates that the Millian stance, far from providing a meagre picture of names as ‘mere tags’, is at least in principle consistent with the recognition of their semantic bonds with richer descriptive material. The Appendix provides a formal treatment of Russell-names within a model theoretic semantics for indexical intensional languages, developed within an original ‘double-context’ framework.

A PDF file should load here. If you do not see its contents the file may be temporarily unavailable at the journal website or you do not have a PDF plug-in installed and enabled in your browser.

Alternatively, you can download the file locally and open with any standalone PDF reader:

https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2Fs10992-015-9390-6.pdf

Russell-Names: An Introduction to Millian Descriptivism

J Philos Logic Russell-Names: An Introduction to Millian Descriptivism Stefano Predelli 0 0 Department of Philosophy, University of Nottingham , Nottingham NG7 2RD , UK This essay studies the semantic properties of what I call Russell-names. Russell-names bear intimate semantic relations with descriptive conditions, in consonance with the main tenets of descriptivism. Yet, they are endowed with the semantic properties attributed to ordinary proper names by Millianism: they are rigid and non-indexical devices of direct reference. This is not an essay in natural language semantics, and remains deliberately neutral with respect to the question whether any among the expressions we ordinarily classify as proper names behave as Russellnames. Its aim is rather that of casting a new light on the traditional debate about descriptivism on the one hand, and, on the other, what is commonly understood as a radically anti-descriptivist approach. From the viewpoint of descriptivism, the conceivability of Russell-names provides welcome relief from the pressure exerted by considerations at odds with a flaccid and/or indexical treatment of proper names. Conversely, from a Millian standpoint, the conceivability of Russell-names indicates that the Millian stance, far from providing a meagre picture of names as 'mere tags', is at least in principle consistent with the recognition of their semantic bonds with richer descriptive material. The Appendix provides a formal treatment of Russellnames within a model theoretic semantics for indexical intensional languages, developed within an original 'double-context' framework. Semantics; Context; Names - This essay is devoted to the discussion of expressions of a particular, and, as far as I can tell, not previously discussed type. I call them Russell-names. The occurrence of ‘Russell’ in ‘Russell-name’ is an allusion to certain aspects of Bertrand Russell’s theory of names, which have provided the initial inspiration for my project—first and foremost, his idea that ‘ordinary proper names’ are abbreviations of definite descriptions.1 Admittedly, this ‘initial inspiration’ yields me to conclusions that bear little resemblance with anything Russell may have wished to say about ordinary names, or for that matter about any other expression. But my aims here are neither historical nor exegetical: rather, my superficial homage to Russell serves as a reminder of the descriptivist aspects in his analysis of proper names, which, in a sense that will hopefully become clearer as I proceed, continue to reverberate in my treatment of Russell-names.2 My initial gesture towards the descriptive dimension of Russell-names is meant to provide a noteworthy contrast with the other part of the moniker I have chosen for my concoctions: Russell-names deserve the label ‘names’ because they are intended to conform to what I take to be the fundamental semantic properties of proper names, namely their rigidity, direct-referentiality, and non-indexicality. These are admittedly not properties that everybody happily attributes to proper names. Yet, my aim here is not that of defending my own views about names: in principle, what I propose remains consistent with the notions that none, some, or perhaps all among the expressions commonly classified as names are Russell-names. Still, my point is also not that of a mere formal exercise, with no bearing on the current debate on proper names: although, in a sense, my treatment of Russell-names follows unashamedly descriptive lines, these expressions do nevertheless conform to the semantic pattern customarily associated with traditionally rabidly anti-descriptivist approaches, first and foremost my favourite Millian treatment of names as rigid and non-indexical referential devices.3 1See for instance [ 40, 41 ] and [42]. 2The form of descriptivism at issue in what follows strikes me as Russellian also because of its insistence on certain semantically relevant relationships between our respective explananda (ordinary names in Russell’s case, Russell-names in mine) and descriptively well-endowed expressions—as opposed to, say, Frege-inspired descriptive senses. The apparatus I put forth in what follows may nevertheless be amenable to developments and amendments consistent with a variety of alternative versions of the descriptivist standpoint. An unrelated historical note is also appropriate at this stage: although I (loosely) follow some of Russell’s insights about the relationships between names and descriptions, I take on board without further ado a relatively non-Russellian approach to the latter (see Section 2); an analysis closer to the letter of Russell’s treatment of definite descriptions should nevertheless be easily derivable from what I write, with opportune modifications and adjustments. 3In the previous paragraph, I described my views on proper names as also committed to the idea that these expressions are devices of direct reference. Direct reference i (...truncated)


This is a preview of a remote PDF: https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2Fs10992-015-9390-6.pdf

Stefano Predelli. Russell-Names: An Introduction to Millian Descriptivism, Journal of Philosophical Logic, 2016, pp. 603-622, Volume 45, Issue 5, DOI: 10.1007/s10992-015-9390-6