Ángel Pinillos

This chapter discusses Kit Fine’s Relationist solution to Frege’s puzzle concerning reference. Fine’s key insight is that versions of the puzzle that do not seem to involve coreference implicitly appeal to that notion, and hence can be handled making use of Relationist techniques. Although I endorse Relationism, I disagree with Fine’s proposed solution. Fine thinks that two types of semantic relations are needed to solve the puzzle: intra- and inter-discourse relations. The chapter argues that (a) appealing to inter-discourse relations in the way Fine proposes leads to severe and perhaps insoluble problems; and (b) contrary to what Fine holds, it is plausible that appealing to intra-discourse semantic relations is enough to make headway into Frege’s puzzle. In addition, the chapter discusses and responds to a criticism of Relationism raised by Scott Soames.

How does a sign manage to represent an object? This is one of the central questions of philosophy. I want to ask a related question. How is it that several signs can represent the very same object? It is tempting to think there is little to this question beyond what can be said about the first. But things are not so simple. A pair of representations can denote the same object in a special way. For some anaphora-antecedent pairs or for some occurrences of the same word, the signs corefer in a way that makes that very fact evident. In this sense, we may say that sometimes the relation of coreference is “de jure”. I begin the paper by outlining what I think are the three core properties of de jure coreference. This reveals that the phenomenon is genuine, ubiquitous and requires explanation. Next, I argue that the relation is not transitive. What this means is that just about every possible explanation is ruled out. For example, we can’t say that two signs are de jure coreferential because they mean the same thing, they are expressions of the same symbol or they correspond to the same variable, index or discourse referent. I do not pursue a solution here.

A passenger boards a fast train. It takes her some distance, makes a u-turn, and returns to the starting platform. She reports that according to her clock, the trip took n seconds. An observer who remained behind on the platform gets a different reading. Using his clock, he records a longer time interval m. These claims are compatible with the clocks being in perfect order. Modern Physics tells us that time is relative. The duration of the trip, understood as the temporal distance between the departure and the return events, will depend on the chosen frame of reference. The passenger and the observer belong to different frames. This is the source of the discrepancy. Suppose that the passenger and the observer speak a language that is like ours with possible differences arising from the assumption that no one in their community knows about modern physics. Let us call this language '19th Century English'. Imagine that the agents, in different conversations, utter sentences (1) and (2) respectively.

A passenger boards a fast train. It takes her some distance, makes a u-turn, and returns to the starting platform. She reports that according to her clock, the trip took n seconds. An observer on the platform, using his own clock, gets a different reading. He records a longer time interval m. These claims are compatible with the clocks being in perfect order. Modern Physics tells us that time is a relativistic notion. The duration of the trip, understood as the temporal distance between the departure and the return event, will depend on the chosen frame of reference. The passenger and the observer belong to different frames. This is the source of the discrepancy. Suppose that the passenger and the observer speak a language that is like ours with possible differences arising from the assumption that no one in their community knows about modern physics. Let us call this language '19th Century English'. Imagine that the agents, in different conversations, utter sentences (1) and (2) respectively.

In A Puzzle About Belief, Saul Kripke tells the story of a person caught in a classic Frege case. Peter is unaware that Paderewski the famous Polish politician, and Paderewski the famous Polish musician, are one and the same person. What is supposed to distinguish this Frege case from many others is that Peter associates a single name, 'Paderewski' with both of his conceptions. But not everyone may agree with this description. Richard Larson and Peter Ludlow, and Robert Fiengo and Robert May have suggested that Peter's idiolect contains two 'Paderewski' names (or syntactic expressions). Just as ordinary English speakers may have two 'bank' words each with its own meaning, Peter has two homophonic names each corresponding to one of his conceptions of Paderewski. I will call this position, which will be subject to further clarification, 'the two-name view'. According to the two-name view, the syntactic facts concerning an agent's language should reflect, in this peculiar way, her own perspective on the world. In this sense then, the two-name view is a symptom of an individualistic conception of the words that make up a person's language