Abstract:

Most direct reference theorists believe that ‘I’ is a pure indexical. This means that when ‘I’ is uttered, it contributes with the speaker to what is said. But, from some conceptions of metonymy as reference transfer, if ‘I’ is used metonymically, it has an improper meaning and the object referred to is not the speaker. We will show that all theories of metonymy as transfer are inadequate and so they cannot determine if the metonymic use of ‘I’ is a counterexample to its consideration as a pure indexical or not. We argue that the appropriate conception on metonymy is to consider it as a case of language reduction and that ‘I’, when used metonymically, is just a part of a non-textual complete noun phrase; ‘I’ has the semantic value that it usually has. The metonymic use of ‘I’ does not risk the consideration of ‘I’ as a pure indexical.