Linguistic and metalinguistic intuitions in the philosophy of language

Machery et al. (2004) reported some preliminary evidence that intuitions about reference vary within and across cultures, and they argued that if real, such variation would have significant philosophical implications (see also Mallon et al. 2009). In a recent article, Genoveva Martí (2009) argues that the type of intuitions examined by Machery and colleagues (‘metalinguistic intuitions’) is evidentially irrelevant for identifying the correct theory of reference, and she concludes that the variation in the relevant intuitions about reference within and across cultures has not been established. To substantiate this criticism, Martí draws a distinction between two types of intuitions: metalinguistic intuitions and what we will call ‘linguistic’ intuitions. Metalinguistic intuitions are judgements about the semantic properties of mentioned words (e.g. their reference), while, if we understand Martí correctly, linguistic intuitions are judgements about the individuals (substances, classes, etc.) described in the actual and possible cases used by philosophers of language. These judgements would be expressed by sentences using words rather than mentioning them. An example might clarify this distinction. In Kripke's Gödel case (1972/1980: 83–84), the judgement that the proper name ‘Gödel’ refers to Gödel and not to Schmidt is a metalinguistic intuition, since it is about the reference of the proper name ‘Gödel’; by contrast, the judgement that in this case Gödel should not have claimed credit for the incompleteness theorem is a linguistic intuition. Because Martí holds that only linguistic intuitions provide evidence for determining how reference is fixed and because Machery and colleagues used a question that elicited metalinguistic intuitions (viz., ‘When John uses the name “Gödel”, is he talking about the person who really discovered the incompleteness of arithmetic or the person who got hold of the manuscript and claimed credit for the work?’), she concludes that the variation in the relevant intuitions about reference within and across cultures has not been established.