Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer
logo de la revista

Artículos

Vol. 16 No. 2 (2025)

Expression and Identification.Comparison between the Expressions in Strawson's Proposal and the Dimension of Identification operational linguistics.

DOI
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18270272
Submitted
August 5, 2025
Published
2026-01-19

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to compare two studies concerning the linguistic action of referring; on the one hand, the proposal of Peter Strawson who introduces the notion of expression and, on the other hand, that of Hansjakob Seiler who proposes the notion of dimension of Identification. The first occurs within philosophy and the second within linguistics. The purpose of this comparison is to point out, albeit in a hypothetical and incipient manner, that with the merger of these two proposals a new perspective would be achieved through which some problems on the subject of reference can be addressed, confronted and solved. However, the latter is not developed, since this paper only focuses on highlighting certain similarities and differences between these two proposals.

References

  1. Akman, V. (2005) “On Strawsonian contexts”. En Pragmatics & Cognition, Vol. 13, Núm. 2, pp. 363–382. John Benjamins Publishing Company.
  2. Bach, K. (1987), Thought and Reference, Oxford: Oxford Clarendon Press.
  3. Bach, K. (2008). “On Referring and Not Referring”. En Reference: Interdiscipli-nary Perspectives. New Directions in Cognitive Science. New York, Oxford Academic. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331639.003.0002
  4. Brown, C., 2006, Peter Strawson, Stocksfield, Acumen, 2006.
  5. Capuano, A. (2019). “On Referring: Donnellan versus Strawson”. En Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 100(4), pp. 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1111/papq.12295
  6. Capuano, A. (2021). “Reference and incomplete descriptions”. En Philos Stud, Núm. 178, pp. 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-020-01506-y
  7. Caton, Ch. (1959) “Strawson on Referring”. En Mind, New Series, Vol. 68, No. 272, pp. 539-544. Oxford University Press. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2252397
  8. Daniels, C. B. (1990). “Definite Descriptions”. En Studia Logica: An International Journal for Symbolic Logic, 49(1), 87–104. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20015481
  9. de Lima, E. C. L. (2006). “Identifying Knowledge and Communication”. En Principia: an international journal of epistemology, Vol. 10, Nº. 2, pp. 125-141.
  10. Duží, M. (2009) “Strawsonian vs. Russellian Definite Descriptions”. En Organon F: Medzinárodný Časopis Pre Analytickú Filozofiu. Vol. 16 Num. 4, pp. 587-614.
  11. Evans, G., 1982, The Varieties of Reference, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
  12. Ezcurdia, M. (2017) “Semantic complexity”. En María de Ponte y Kepa Korta (Eds.) Reference and Representation in Thought and Language. Oxford, Oxford University Press. PP. 73 – 102.
  13. Gale, R. M. (1970). “Strawson’s Restricted Theory of Referring”. The Philosophi-cal Quarterly (1950-), 20 (79), 162–165. https://doi.org/10.2307/2218087
  14. Gómez-Torrente, M. (2015). ‘Quantifiers and Referential Use’. En A. Torza (ed.) Quantifiers, Quantifiers, and Quantifiers. Dordrecht: Springer.
  15. Graff, Delia. 2001. “Descriptions as predicates”. En Philosophical Studies No. 102. Netherlands, Kluwer Academic Publishers. pp. 1–42.
  16. Huang, Y., 2007, Pragmatics, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
  17. Iturrioz, J. L. (2001) “Diversas aproximaciones a la nominalización. De las abstracciones a las macrooperaciones textuales”. En Función. La gramática en el texto. México, Universidad de Guadalajara, pp. 31-139.
  18. Iturrioz, L. J. L. y Leal, C. F. (1986) Algunas consecuencias filosóficas de UNYTIP, en memorias I, Facultad de Filosofía y Letras de la Universidad de Guadalaja-ra.
  19. Iturrioz, L. J. L. y Martinez Sixto, A. L. (2015) “Aprehensión lingüística del sonido en mí?2phaa2, wixárica, español y alemán. Análisis contrastivo y tipo-lógico de un dominio operacional.” Iturrioz, L. J. L. y Gómez, P. (Eds.) De la gramática a la filosofía del lenguaje. Universidad de Guadalajara, 7-82.
  20. Martí, G. (2022). “Reference and Theories of Reference”. En Piotr Stalmaszczyk (Ed.) The Cambridge Handbook of the Philosophy of Language. U. K. Cambridge University Press.
  21. Paul, M. (1999). Success in Referential Communication. United Kingdom, Springer Dordrecht y Kluwer Academic Publishers.
  22. Recanati, François. Literal meaning. U. K. Cambridge University Press, 2004.
  23. Rodríguez Monsiváis, R. “Acercamiento a los entimemas desde una perspecti-va operacional.” En Revista Iberoamericana de Argumentación. Núm.16 (2018), UAM, Madrid, España, pp. 69-87, ISSN: 2172-8801. DOI: 10.15366/ria
  24. Schoubye, A. J. (2010) “Descriptions, truth value intuitions, and questions”. En Linguis-tics and Philosophy, Vol. 32, Núm. 6. pp. 583-617. DOI : 10.1007/s10988-010-9069-y
  25. Seiler, H. (1986) Apprehension. Language, object and order. Germany, Gunter Narr Verlag.
  26. Seiler, H. (2000) Language universal research: a synthesis. Germany, Gunter Narr Verlag. Seiler, H. y Brettschneider, G. (1985) Language invariants and mental operations. Germany, Tübingen.
  27. Seiler, H. (1994) “Dimensiones, categorías y prototipos lingüísticos universa-les”. Montangero, J. y A. Tryphon (eds.) Lenguaje y Cognición. UdeG/gamma editorial, México, 157-177.
  28. Strawson, P. (1950) “On referring”. Mind, New Series, Vol. 59, No. 235. pp. 320-344. Sobre el referir. En Villanueva Valdés, Luis Ml. (Ed.) La búsqueda del significado. Tecnos, Madrid, 2005.
  29. Yoon, J. (2001) “Las técnicas de INDIVIDUACIÓN e IDENTIFICACIÓN en coreano y español. Análisis contrastivo”. En Función. La gramática en el texto. México, Universidad de Guadalajara, Nums. 21-24, pp. 279-338.