A problem for Predicativism not solved by Predicativism
Main Article Content
Abstract
Hawthorne & Manley (2012) observe that there is a clear contrast between (1) and (2):
(1) In every race, the colt won.
(2) In every race, John won.
Whereas 'the colt' in (1) has a co-varying reading, 'John' in (2) does not. This is a problem for the so-called Predicativist view of names defended by e.g., Elbourne (2005), Matushansky (2006, 2008), Izumi (2013), and Fara (2015a,b,c). In a recent response to Hawthorne and Manley, Fara argues that this contrast is not only not a problem for her view, but it is in fact predicted by it. In other words, the existence of this contrast, according to Fara, provides an argument in favor of Predicativism. In this short discussion note, I show that Fara's response has significant shortcomings and that the contrast between (1) and (2) remains a considerable problem for the Predicativist view of names.
BibTeX info
(1) In every race, the colt won.
(2) In every race, John won.
Whereas 'the colt' in (1) has a co-varying reading, 'John' in (2) does not. This is a problem for the so-called Predicativist view of names defended by e.g., Elbourne (2005), Matushansky (2006, 2008), Izumi (2013), and Fara (2015a,b,c). In a recent response to Hawthorne and Manley, Fara argues that this contrast is not only not a problem for her view, but it is in fact predicted by it. In other words, the existence of this contrast, according to Fara, provides an argument in favor of Predicativism. In this short discussion note, I show that Fara's response has significant shortcomings and that the contrast between (1) and (2) remains a considerable problem for the Predicativist view of names.
BibTeX info
Article Details
Issue
Section
Squibs, Remarks, and Replies
Articles appearing in Semantics and Pragmatics are published under an author agreement with the Linguistic Society of America and are made available to readers under a Creative Commons Attribution License.