Two people each utter the sentence 'I am hungry.' According to Kaplan's theory, which statement correctly describes what is shared and what differs between the two utterances?
ABoth utterances express the same proposition, since the sentence is identical
BThe character of 'I' differs for each speaker, which is why they refer to different people
CThe character of 'I' is the same for both — 'the speaker of the context' — but the content (who is referred to) differs, and therefore the propositions expressed differ
D'I' is not directly referential because it picks out different individuals in different contexts
Character is the stable rule that all competent speakers share — for 'I,' the rule is 'the speaker of the context.' This never changes. Content is what that rule yields in a specific context: when Griffin utters 'I,' the content is Griffin; when you utter 'I,' the content is you. Same character, different content. The propositions expressed are genuinely different singular propositions. And 'I' remains directly referential precisely because it contributes the person themselves — not a descriptive condition — to the proposition once context has fixed the reference.
Question 2 Multiple Choice
On Kaplan's theory, what does a competent speaker know when they know the meaning of the word 'now'?
AThe specific time at which they are currently speaking
BThe character of 'now' — the rule 'the time of utterance' — which is the same in every context and never changes
CA definite description equivalent to 'the moment I happen to be speaking'
DA Fregean sense that picks out the time indirectly through a description
Kaplan's key insight is that linguistic competence is knowledge of character, not knowledge of content. A speaker who knows the word 'now' knows the rule for determining its referent from any context — namely, look to the time of the utterance. They do not need to know which specific time it is to understand the word. The character is constant; the content varies. This is what distinguishes indexicals from ordinary proper names (whose character just is their content) and from descriptions (which don't directly refer to individuals at all).
Question 3 True / False
Because 'I' picks out different individuals in different contexts of utterance, it is not directly referential — it expresses a descriptive condition like 'the current speaker' rather than contributing the individual directly to the proposition.
TTrue
FFalse
Answer: False
This conflates character with content. 'I' is directly referential precisely because, once context fixes the referent, the expression contributes just the individual — not a description — to the proposition expressed. The proposition I express by saying 'I am hungry' is the singular proposition <Griffin, hungry>, not the general proposition <whoever is currently speaking, hungry>. The context-sensitivity of indexicals is captured at the level of character (the rule), not at the level of content (which is object-involving and directly referential once the context is fixed).
Question 4 True / False
In Kaplan's framework, the character of a pure indexical like 'here' is constant across all contexts of utterance.
TTrue
FFalse
Answer: True
Character is the linguistic meaning of an expression — what a competent speaker knows when they know how to use the word. For pure indexicals, this rule is entirely stable: 'here' always means 'the place of the context of utterance,' regardless of where or when it is used. What varies is the content — the specific place picked out in each context. Character is what stays constant; content is what the character delivers in a particular context.
Question 5 Short Answer
What is the difference between the character and the content of an indexical expression in Kaplan's theory, and why does the framework need both levels rather than just one?
Think about your answer, then reveal below.
Model answer: The character of an indexical is the stable rule that determines its referent given a context — for 'I,' this is 'the speaker of the context'; for 'now,' it is 'the time of utterance.' Character is what a competent speaker knows: it is the linguistic meaning, constant across all contexts. The content is what the character yields in a specific utterance — the actual individual, time, or place referred to. Kaplan needs both levels because a single level cannot explain two things simultaneously: (1) why 'I' is semantically the same word whoever uses it (same character) and (2) why different utterances of 'I am hungry' express genuinely different propositions (different content/referent). Character explains linguistic competence; content explains propositional contribution. Without character, context-sensitivity is inexplicable; without content, we can't distinguish what different utterances assert.