The Meaning of Us
Abstract
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.
References
Gilbert, Margaret (1989), On Social Facts. London: Routledge.
Grice, H. Paul (1967), “Further notes on logic and conversation.” In P. Cole (ed.) 1978 Syntax and Semantics 9: Pragmatics, New York: Academic Press. Reprinted in Grice, 1989, Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, pp. 41–57.
Kaplan, David (1989), «Demonstratives». In J. Almog, J. Perry, and H. Wettstein (eds.) Themes from Kaplan. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989, pp. 481–563.
Korta, Kepa (2013), «Grice’s requirements on what is said». In C. Penco & F. Domaneschi (eds.), What is Said and What is Not. Stanford: CSLI Publications, pp. 209–224. Available at: http://www.kepakorta.com/uploads/1/2/4/8/12487758/2013_gricesrequirements.pdf
Korta, Kepa and John Perry (2006), “Three demonstrations and a funeral.” Mind and Language 21 (2): 166–186. doi: 10.1111/j.0268-1064.2006.00310.x
Korta, Kepa and John Perry (2011), Critical Pragmatics. An Inquiry into Reference and Communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511994869
Korta, Kepa and John Perry (2013), «Highlights of Critical Pragmatics: reference and the contents of the utterance». Intercultural Pragmatics 10 (1): 161–182. doi: 10.1515/ip-2013-0006
Korta, Kepa and John Perry (forthcoming), «Full but unsaturated. The myth of mandatory pragmatic processes». In S. Conrad & K. Petrus (eds.), Meaning, Context, and Methodology. Mouton de Gruyter.
Martí, Genoveva (2008), «Direct Reference and Definite Descriptions». Dialectica 62: 43–57. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1746-8361.2008.01138.x
Nunberg, Geoffrey (1993), “Indexicality and Deixis.” Linguistics and Philosophy 16: 1–44. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00984721
Partee, Barbara H. (1989), «Binding Implicit Variables in Quantified Contexts». In Papers from the 25th Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistics Society: Parasession on Language in Context, Chicago Linguistics Society, Chicago.
Perry, John (2003), «Predelli’s threatening note: contexts, utterances, and tokens in the philosophy of language». Journal of Pragmatics 35: 373–387. doi: 10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00141-8
Perry, John (2006), «Using Indexicals». In Michael Devitt and Richard Hanley (eds.), The Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of Language, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2006, pp. 314–334. doi: 10.1002/9780470757031.ch17
Perry, John (2007), “Borges and I” and ‘I.’» The Amherst Lecture in Philosophy 2 (2007): 1–16.
Perry, John (2012), Reference and reflexivity. 2nd edition. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Perry, John, forthcoming, «Indexicas and undexicals», in de Ponte, M. & Korta, K. (eds.) Reference and representation in thought and language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Predelli, Stefano (1998), «I am not here now». Analysis 58: 107–115. doi: 10.1093/analys/58.2.107
Recanati, François (2001), «Are ‘here’ and ‘now’ indexicals?» Texte 127(8): 115–127.
Tuomela, Raimo (1995), The Importance of Us: A Philosophical Study of Basic Social Notions. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Vallée, Richard (1996), “Who are we?” Canadian Journal of Philosophy 26: 211–230. doi: 10.1080/00455091.1996.10717451
Vallée, Richard (2009), «Talking about us». In J. M. Larrazabal & L. Zubeldia (ed.), Meaning, Content and Argument. Proceedings of the ILCLI International Workshop on Semantics, Pragmatics and Rhetoric. Bilbo: Euskal Herriko Unibertsitateko Argitalpen Zerbitzua.
Copyright (c) 2016 Disputatio. Philosophical Research Bulletin
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.