Abstract

The conclusion of the investigation is that the NTR has indeed succeeded in presenting a new and compelling picture of how referring terms function, but that the case for these new developments constituting a decisive critique of Frege is not completely made out. In general, Fregean theory seems more flexible and susceptible to reconstruction than the NTR would make it out to be. Though certain assumptions of Frege may prove irretrievable, there are core principles that the NTR has not succeeded in disproving. ;Recent work on proper names, natural kind terms and indexicals has challenged the classical semantic theory of Frege. The so-called New Theory of Reference denies Frege's doctrine that every singular term has a sense and a reference . The question is: is this critique successful? This divides into the following problems: Does the NTR present a compelling account of the nature of reference? Even if the answer to is affirmative, does this imply that Frege's theory was mistaken, or can his theory be amended to incorporate the new developments in semantics? ;In attempting to answer these questions, an analysis is provided of important tenets of the NTR, such as the insistence on a "division of linguistic labor", on the "social" nature of our use of certain referring terms, and on the frequent ignorance of speakers concerning the objects they purport to refer to. The NTR tends to make precise Frege's ideas to criticize them, while not making its own doctrines sufficiently precise to permit similar scrutiny. In the process of explicating these new doctrines of the NTR, it is found that they too are subject to serious problems. The focus is on Donnellan's work on proper names, Putnam's on natural kind terms, and Perry's on indexicals. Where these authors' theses are found to be cogent an attempt is made to reconstruct Fregean theory to account for them