A problem for predicativism not solved by predicativism

Anders Schoubye

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract / Description of output

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.
Original languageEnglish
Article number18
JournalSemantics and Pragmatics
Volume9
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 27 Apr 2016

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'A problem for predicativism not solved by predicativism'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this