Theoretical analysis reveals unresolved inconsistencies in leading accounts of reference change, highlighting the need for a new model of linguistic reference fixing.
Key Points
Investigate why Evans' Madagascar case is traditionally classified as a genuine reference change while Kripke's Leaf Raking case is not, despite their apparent structural similarities.
Comparative theoretical analysis of prominent philosophical test cases regarding proper names and reference shifting.
Critical review of established frameworks of reference fixing, including Kripke's causal model and Evans' revised accounts.
Influential and contemporary semantic frameworks fail to satisfactorily account for the asymmetry between cases of genuine reference change and everyday reference errors.
The theoretical challenge persists across both standard causal-historical models and subsequent intentional revisions, motivating a new approach to reference fixing.