Philosophy of Language Fall 2003

Fake Midterm Exam (what a take-home midterm exam would have looked like had we had one).

Answer each of the following questions with a clearly phrased, well-structured essay.

1. What are singular terms, and what would a naïve referential theory say about their meanings? Summarize each of the four puzzles about singular terms, using an example to illustrate each puzzle, and indicate how each poses a problem for the naïve referential theory. How does Frege’s theory of senses solve the puzzles? Make sure to use examples to show how Frege’s theory is supposed to solve them.

(See additional handout for an example of well-done essay response to this question).

2. Summarize each of the four puzzles about singular terms as they apply in the case of definite descriptions (If you have already done this for question #1, feel free to cut and paste, but keep in mind we are talking here about definite descriptions in particular, not proper names). Then, summarize Russell’s theory of definite descriptions, illustrating with one or more examples. Finally, indicate how it solves the four puzzles.

3. This question has two parts. First, Strawson objects to Russell’s theory of definite descriptions by claiming that Russell confuses sentence types with sentence tokens. What is the difference between a sentence type and a sentence token? Finally, what exactly is Strawson’s objection?

Second, what is the distinction between ‘referential’ and ‘attributive’ uses of a definite description, according to Keith Donnellan? Illustrate the distinction with an example or examples. How does Donnellan use this distinction to criticize Russell and Strawson?

4. What is Russell’s theory of proper names, and how does it relate to his theory of definite descriptions? Describe two objections to Russell’s theory as advanced by Searle. Finally, summarize Searle’s proposed alternative.

5. Searle proposes a cluster theory of proper names, and Kripke criticizes it at length. First, describe Searle’s cluster theory of names. Second, summarize Kripke’s theory of rigid designation by contrasting it with the Millian theory of names, and then indicate how Kripke uses it to argue against Searle. Make sure to indicate specifically which thesis of Searle’s Kripke is arguing against by invoking rigid designation, and to frame the argument in terms of that thesis.

6. What is the difference between a theory of meaning and a theory of reference? What is the ‘causal-historical theory of reference’, as proposed by Kripke? Finally, summarize two objections to the theory as discussed in class.

7. Summarize Hilary Putnam’s ‘twin earth’ thought experiment. What conclusion does he draw concerning the nature of meaning, and how does the thought experiment support this conclusion? What alternative conclusion about the nature of reference and meaning might one draw from the thought experiment?