Consider the true sentences ‘Bob Dylan is Robert Zimmerman’ and ‘Bob Dylan is Bob Dylan’.
What, according to Frege, is the important difference between them? Why does he think
that this difference poses a problem for Naive Semantics? How does his theory solve this
problem? What do you think of Frege’s views on this issue?
In this essay, I will aim to explain in depth the differences between Naïve and Fregean
Semanticists’ approaches when distinguishing between the two given sentences.
I will show also why this distinction between the two sentences is so important to Frege. The
problem this distinction poses for Naive Semantics is the fact that they differ in cognitive value,
something not covered by naive semantics’ theory, which I will later cover in greater detail.
Finally, I will present an objection to Frege’s theory, by Russell, before expressing my views on
Frege’s take on this issue.
The meaning of a sentence or expression is the proposition it expresses. This means it is what
one understands when they read a sentence, or the belief one forms when they believe a
sentence to be true. (Predelli 2018: Lecture 4) This belief you form or the information you gain
from understanding a sentence is known as the cognitive value of that sentence. (Predelli 2018:
Lecture 4) In order to understand an English sentence, one must need to learn 1) the English
words, 2) how the English syntax puts them together 3) what these words mean and 4) what
happens when you put them together in a certain way. (Predelli 2018: Lecture 2.)
A sentence is made up of predicates and singular terms, and it is the function of these singular
terms which is in disagreement between Naive and Fregean semanticists.
1
, Furthermore, the principle of compositionality proposes that the meaning of a sentence is
determined by two factors: the meaning of its parts (semantics), and its grammatical structure
(syntax). (Pelletier 1994)
Naive semanticists believe that singular terms simply “contribute a referent” to the proposition.
However, Fregean semanticists believe that singular terms cannot just contribute a reference,
they actually have (what Frege referred to as) a ‘sense’, and derivatively refer to an individual.
(Predelli 2018: Lecture 4). I will explain this concept of ‘sense’ in greater depth later on in the
essay.
From a Fregean viewpoint, the difference between these two sentences ‘Bob Dylan is Bob
Dylan’ and ‘Bob Dylan is Robert Zimmerman’ is the cognitive value they hold.
The first expression is in the form a=a whilst the second is in the form a=b. While a and b have
the same referent, they have different senses. Therefore, while a=a does not tell us anything
new, a=b tells us that the two senses have the same reference. We are using two different
terms (a and b) to refer to the same thing. “Bob Dylan is Robert Zimmerman” holds more
cognitive significance than “Bob Dylan is Bob Dylan” because the former tells us that two senses
refer to the same object, while the latter simply tells us that a sense and a reference are
identical to themselves.
This poses a problem for the naive semanticists as they hold the belief that all that singular
items (i.e. names) do is refer. If the meaning of a singular term is determined by its referent
2
What, according to Frege, is the important difference between them? Why does he think
that this difference poses a problem for Naive Semantics? How does his theory solve this
problem? What do you think of Frege’s views on this issue?
In this essay, I will aim to explain in depth the differences between Naïve and Fregean
Semanticists’ approaches when distinguishing between the two given sentences.
I will show also why this distinction between the two sentences is so important to Frege. The
problem this distinction poses for Naive Semantics is the fact that they differ in cognitive value,
something not covered by naive semantics’ theory, which I will later cover in greater detail.
Finally, I will present an objection to Frege’s theory, by Russell, before expressing my views on
Frege’s take on this issue.
The meaning of a sentence or expression is the proposition it expresses. This means it is what
one understands when they read a sentence, or the belief one forms when they believe a
sentence to be true. (Predelli 2018: Lecture 4) This belief you form or the information you gain
from understanding a sentence is known as the cognitive value of that sentence. (Predelli 2018:
Lecture 4) In order to understand an English sentence, one must need to learn 1) the English
words, 2) how the English syntax puts them together 3) what these words mean and 4) what
happens when you put them together in a certain way. (Predelli 2018: Lecture 2.)
A sentence is made up of predicates and singular terms, and it is the function of these singular
terms which is in disagreement between Naive and Fregean semanticists.
1
, Furthermore, the principle of compositionality proposes that the meaning of a sentence is
determined by two factors: the meaning of its parts (semantics), and its grammatical structure
(syntax). (Pelletier 1994)
Naive semanticists believe that singular terms simply “contribute a referent” to the proposition.
However, Fregean semanticists believe that singular terms cannot just contribute a reference,
they actually have (what Frege referred to as) a ‘sense’, and derivatively refer to an individual.
(Predelli 2018: Lecture 4). I will explain this concept of ‘sense’ in greater depth later on in the
essay.
From a Fregean viewpoint, the difference between these two sentences ‘Bob Dylan is Bob
Dylan’ and ‘Bob Dylan is Robert Zimmerman’ is the cognitive value they hold.
The first expression is in the form a=a whilst the second is in the form a=b. While a and b have
the same referent, they have different senses. Therefore, while a=a does not tell us anything
new, a=b tells us that the two senses have the same reference. We are using two different
terms (a and b) to refer to the same thing. “Bob Dylan is Robert Zimmerman” holds more
cognitive significance than “Bob Dylan is Bob Dylan” because the former tells us that two senses
refer to the same object, while the latter simply tells us that a sense and a reference are
identical to themselves.
This poses a problem for the naive semanticists as they hold the belief that all that singular
items (i.e. names) do is refer. If the meaning of a singular term is determined by its referent
2
