This is the second part of the lesson "Reference and Meaning" in Philosophy of Language. The thoughts of John Stuart Mill is discussed in these slides. The reference for this material is " Philosophy of Language" by Hornsby and Longworth.

1. John Stuart Mill
(1806-1873)
“Logic comprises the science of reasoning, as well as
an art, founded in that science.” –System of Logic
System of Logic is concerned with the right method of
thinking for constructing a ‘science of human nature’
that would include psychology, sociology, and
economics.

2. System of Logic
First part: devoted to explaining why an
analysis of language should precede the
rest of Mill’s enquiries
Second part: ‘Of Names,’ Mill used the
word ‘name’ broadly; all words are either
names or parts of names
He made a distinction between
categorematic words(words or phrases
that are meaningful when they stand
alone) and syncategorematic words
(words or phrases that convey no
meaning until they are joined with other
words or phrases

3. Questions
How exactly should we understand the
idea of something that has meaning
when it stands alone?
What exactly belongs in Mill’s
category of ‘name?’
Hasn’t this distinction been overtaken
by work in compositional semantics?
(Chap.3 and Chap.5)

4. Mill’s Aim
To establish a classification of names
(three principal divisions)
To make a distinction between things
and attributes of things—a distinction
that can be understood by reference
to simple subject-predicate sentences)

5. Why is this of interest to
us?
First, when we know what different
kinds of names there are, we can go
on to say something about the
different kinds of things there are;
Second, the difference between
names of different sorts correspond to
differences in the workings of different
sorts of words
It can be instructive to think about
individual words and the various ways
in which they behave, or have
meaning

6. J.S. Mill ‘Of Names’ (extracts
from System of Logic, Book 1,
Ch.2)
Focus:
1. Mill’s treatment of general names,
which contrasts with Locke’s
treatment of them;
2. Mill’s treatment of proper names,
which contrasts with Frege’s.

7. How did Mill characterize the
three principal divisions among
names?
I. Singular or general
1. Singular- capable of being truly affirmed
of one thing (e.g. Fr. Joel Tabora, the
little girl)
2. General- capable of being truly affirmed
of an indefinite number of things (e.g.
Man, dog)
1. General vs. Collective- general name is one
which can be predicated of each individual of
a multitude; collective name cannot be
predicated of each separately but only of all
taken together (e.g. The 76th Reginment)

8. II. Concrete or abstract
1. Concrete- a name which stand for a
thing (e.g. white, man, old)
2. Abstract- a name which stands for an
attribute of a thing (e.g. whiteness,
humanity, old age)
1. Abstract-general- names not of one single
and definite attribute, but of a class of
attributes (e.g. colour is a name common to
whiteness, redness, etc.)
2. Abstract-’neither general nor singular’- when
only one attribute, neiither variable in degree
nor in kind, is designated by the name (e.g.
visibleness; tangibleness; equality- for
although it denotes an attribute of many
different objects, the attribute itself is always
conceived as one, not many

9. III. Connotative or non-
connotative
1. connotative- a name which
denotes a subject, and implies
an attribute (e.g. white, long,
virtuous)
2. non-connotative- a name
which signifies a subject
only,(e.g. Philippines,
Duterte), or an attribute only
(e.g. whiteness, length, virtue)

10. All concrete general names are
connotative.
“Man”
Connotative- denotes Renato, Aella, Andrew and
an indefinite number of other individuals, of
whom, taken as a class, it is the name. It is
applied to them because they possess certain
attributes (corporeity, animal life, rationality, and
a certain external form, which for distinction we
call the human).
Concrete- a name which stand for a thing
General- capable of being truly affirmed of an
indefinite number of things

11. Abstract names may also be
connotative.
Attributes themselves may have
attributes ascribed to them; and a word
which denotes attributes may connote an
attribute of those attributes (e.g. fault;
equivalent to bad or hurtful quality. This
word is a name common to many
attributes.)

12. Proper names are not
connotative.
E.g. “John Stuart Mill”
-these names denote the individuals who are
called by them but they do not indicate or imply
any attributes as belonging to those individuals
- these are simply “marks”
- Attached to the objects themselves and are not
independent on the continuance of any attribute
of the object
- ‘unmeaning’

13. On Proper Names
Many things may have the same proper
names but depending on a context it stands
for just one thing
When a proper name is given to a thing, it is
not because of any of its attributes but
because it was just a ‘given name’:
“Proper names are without signification.”
“Proper names are unmeaning marks.”

14. Locke Mill
“abstract” is used for general signs “abstract” a name which stands for
an attribute of a thing
Purpose of general signs is
convenience (it will be
inconvenient to give a different
name to every single object)
The purpose of general signs is to
classify names for better
understanding and communication.
The difference between a
particular sign and a general sign
is the difference between the ideas
of two sorts
The difference between singular
and general names is between
what they denote.

15. Strengths of Mill
Deeper understanding of things (of course dogs are not
abstract things; and this is further supported when one
is able to know what the name denotes through the
distinction of general names and abstracts names)
2 Advantages of Mill’s General Names:
1. It enables a distinction between a name denoting an
attribute possessed by singular things and a name
denoting an attribute possessed by a multitude of
things.
1. It allows us to assert general propositions: speakers
may want to say something about more than one
object (vs. Locke: general terms are only used to
avoid the inconvenience of giving a separate name to
each object)

16. Weaknesses of Mill
Mill speaks of the ‘principal use’ of a
general name as its use ‘in predication’, but
it seems that we need to understand how a
name which is employed simply in
predicating an attribute (dog in “Fido is a
dog.”) can also occur in “All dogs are four-
legged.
How should we understand a general term
when it is combined with a varietyof other
terms?

17. Mill’s general words opens up 2
dimensions of meaning (Locke only 1):
1. general words means it denotes an
attribute (e.g. ‘dog ‘denotes or is truly
attributable to, all and only the things
that are dogs.
2. but, it so attributable in virtue of an
attribute of those things; it connotes
that attribute: (e.g.it indirectly signifies
the attribute of doghood)

18. Summary
What is the signification of a name/word?
Crediting a word with a connotation is the
only way, besides attributing a denotation
to the word, of registering the word’s
significance.
Therefore, Mill argues, since proper
names do not indirectly signify any
attribute, they are ‘not affirmed in any
sense at all’, are ‘without signification’,
are ‘unmeaning.’