Tese arquivada ao abrigo da Portaria nº 227/2017 de 25 de Julho-Registo de Grau EstrangeiroThis thesis is a general defence of a context-dependent description theory of reference with
special regards to indexical reference on the basis of a truth-conditional theory of meaning. It
consists of two parts. In the first part, the roots of the Frege-Russell view are laid out and
contrasted with various aspects of direct reference theory and the New Theory of Reference.
Two description-based accounts of the reference of proper names, nominal and external description
theory, are defended against various known counter-arguments such as Kripke’s circularity
objection and the Church-Langford translation test. It is shown how the resulting analysis of
de dicto belief ascriptions can be made compositional, but also argued that compositionality
is not mandatory. The second part deals with forms of indexical and non-indexical contextdependence.
Taking into account a range of typological data, referential features of indexical
expressions like their egocentricity, token-reflexivity, and the vagueness of spatial and temporal
indexicals are laid out. Kaplan’s Logic of Demonstratives is then reformulated, but following
Cresswell (1990) it is argued that full quantification over modal indices is needed. Various indicators
and demonstratives are analyzed on the basis of a description theory of reference in
a variant of first-order predicate logic with non-traditional predication theory and two sorts of
reified contexts. Examples analyzed include: I, now, here, actually, we, the former president, the
left entrance, context-shifting indexicals, and demonstratives like Japanese are. Finally, essential
indexicality is addressed and it is conceded that description theory cannot deal with attitudes
de se. In defense of indirect reference it is argued that the cognitive phenomena underlying
essential indexicality, as for example I-thoughts, aren’t aspects of the public meaning of natural
language expressions and that speaking of a ‘language of thinking’ or ‘reference in thinking’ are
unfitting metaphors for general semiotic reasons
