专名的摹状词理论和“语义学论证”

The Descriptive Theory of Proper Name and Semantic Argument

专名的摹状词理论可以用于两种不同的目的:第一,用来说明专名的意义;第二,用来说明专名指称其对象的指称方式。根据这两种用途,关于专名的摹状词理论相应地可以区分成"专名的摹状词意义理论"和"专名的摹状词指称理论"两种形式。克里普克认为专名的"摹状词意义理论"相比其"摹状词指称理论"来说要更为基础,理由是:当摹状词被用来说明专名的指称方式时,这种说明必然预设了"摹状词被首先用来说明专名的意义"。笔者将论证,克里普克在上述两种专名的摹状词理论之间建立的必然关联是不存在的,也就是说,我们可以独立地使用摹状词理论来说明专名的指称问题而无需以"专名的摹状词意义理论"为基础,也即:"专名的摹状词指称理论"可以独立地被运用。以上述论证为基础,笔者将讨论克里普克对于"独立"使用的"专名的摹状词指称理论"的反驳——"语义学"论证,认为克里普克的"语义学论证"并不成立,因为该论证是建立在对"指称关系"的错误理解之基础上的。

The description theory of proper name can be used for two different purposes： first,to illustrate the meaning of proper name; second,to explain the referential mechanism of proper name. According to these two purposes,the description theory of proper name can be divided into two categories： ＂ proper name＇s descriptive theory of meaning＂ and ＂ proper name＇s descriptive theory of reference＂. Kripke thought that proper name＇s descriptive theory of meaning is far more basic than the proper name＇s descriptive theory of reference,and the reason is that： whenever you are using the descriptive theory of reference,you will inevitably presuppose the descriptive theory of meaning. This paper will argue that the link between these two kinds descriptive theory of proper name which Kripke had established doesn＇t exist,that is to say,we can independently use the descriptive theory of reference of proper name without presupposing the descriptive theory of meaning as its foundation theory. On the basis of the above argument,this article will discuss Kripke＇s refutation of proper name＇s descriptive theory of reference——the named＂semantics argument＂. I will argue that Kripke＇s＂semantics argument＂is not so tenable as we usually think,because the argument is based on the misleadingly understanding of proper name＇s referential mechanism.