塞尔和克里普克的专名理论比较

Comparing J. Searle's Theory of Proper Names with S. Kripke's

对于专名有没有涵义和如何指称的问题,塞尔提出了摹状词理论,认为专名不仅有指称而且有涵义。而克里普克则坚持历史因果理论,坚持专名只有指称没有涵义。文章通过分析比较这两种观点,发现这两种理论之所以不同的一个重要原因在于他们对专名涵义和指称的理解有所不同, 因此,与其说二者是对立的,不如说是互补。

Do proper names have senses and references？ In order to solve this question, J. Searle posed his description theory, proper names both having senses and references. S. Kripke retained the theory of historical cause and effect, proper names having references but not senses. Comparing these two views, this paper found that these two views ware different because of their understandings of sense and reference had differences. So I would rather to say that these two views are complemental than oppesitive.