Who Are We?

Canadian Journal of Philosophy 26 (2):211-230 (1996)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Personal and demonstrative pronouns are notorious for challenging any theory of natural language. Singular pronouns have received much attention from linguists and philosophers alike during the last three decades. Plural pronouns, on the other hand, have been neglected, especially by philosophers. I want to fill this gap and suggest accounts of ‘we,’ the plural ‘you,’ and ‘they.'Intuitively, singular and plural personal pronouns are ‘counterparts.' Any account of personal pronouns should make sense of this intuition. However, the latter is not very sophisticated and, as we move along, it will be reexamined and relativized. As we shall see, plural pronouns are much more than mere counterparts of the familiar singular ones. It is well known that third person singular pronouns have puzzling behaviors, acting as co-referential terms, bound variables, or unbound anaphora. But co-reference, binding, and unbound anaphora are not confined to the usual examples and extend, in a way, to plural pronouns. My discussion of the latter is partly motivated by this particular behavior.

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive

    This entry is not archived by us. If you are the author and have permission from the publisher, we recommend that you archive it. Many publishers automatically grant permission to authors to archive pre-prints. By uploading a copy of your work, you will enable us to better index it, making it easier to find.

    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 103,190

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Dependent plural pronouns with Skolemized choice functions.Yasutada Sudo - 2014 - Natural Language Semantics 22 (3):265-297.
Unmatched chains and the representation of plural pronouns.Mark C. Baker - 1992 - Natural Language Semantics 1 (1):33-73.
What we can do.Katherine Ritchie - 2020 - Philosophical Studies 177 (4):865-882.
Quantifiers and Relative Clauses I.Gareth Evans - 1977 - Canadian Journal of Philosophy 7 (3):467-536.
Pronouns and Anaphora.Stephen Neale - 2006 - In Michael Devitt & Richard Hanley, The Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of Language. Malden, Mass.: Wiley-Blackwell. pp. 335--373.
Essentially Indexical Bound Anaphoric Pronouns.Katrina Przyjemski - 2008 - Proceedings of the Xxii World Congress of Philosophy 39:215-222.
Pronouns of Zichang Dialect in the Jin Dialect.Yan-mei Li - 2005 - Philosophy of the Social Sciences 35 (2):158-162.

Analytics

Added to PP
2011-01-04

Downloads
98 (#221,536)

6 months
8 (#388,706)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

Collective guilt feeling revisited.Anita Konzelmann Ziv - 2007 - Dialectica 61 (3):467–493.
No Picnic: Cavell on Rule‐Descriptions.Constantine Sandis - 2021 - Philosophical Investigations 44 (3):295-317.
What we can do.Katherine Ritchie - 2020 - Philosophical Studies 177 (4):865-882.

View all 8 citations / Add more citations

References found in this work

Demonstratives: An Essay on the Semantics, Logic, Metaphysics and Epistemology of Demonstratives and other Indexicals.David Kaplan - 1989 - In Joseph Almog, John Perry & Howard Wettstein, Themes From Kaplan. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 481-563.
The Varieties of Reference.Louise M. Antony - 1987 - Philosophical Review 96 (2):275.
Frege on demonstratives.John Perry - 1977 - Philosophical Review 86 (4):474-497.
The Varieties of Reference.Gareth Evans & John Mcdowell - 1986 - Philosophy 61 (238):534-538.

View all 15 references / Add more references