指称模糊性:从克里普克三大论证来看

Referential Vagueness:From Kripke'S Three Arguments' Point of View

在《命名与必然性》中,克里普克使用三大论证来批评弗雷格式的描述理论,然后追随弗雷格的学者认为修改的描述理论可以经受住三大论证。因果描述理论并没有能够对克里普克的语义论证进行有力的辩护。指称在因果描述理论和直接指称的因果链条中是同样模糊的。语用解读为指称模糊性这种现象提供了一个很好的辩护。

In Naming and Necessity,Kripke attack Fregean descriptive theories with three arguments,but scholars who espoused Fregean view believe that properly modified descriptive analyses are capable of withstanding their arguments.This paper analyse their arguments,and point out the causal description theory can＇t withstand the Kripke＇s semantical argument.This suggest indirectly that reference of proper names in the causal description theory and the casual chain of direct reference are equally vague.The reading of pragmatic provides a good defence for referential vagueness.