In Defense of a Pragmatic Interpretation of Bambi Sentences

This paper addresses the debate surrounding bound uses of names. My primary aim is to argue that bound interpretations of names do not provide evidence that names semantically have bound uses. I begin by outlining the motivation for the view that names do have semantic bound uses, then offer several reasons to reject this view. Chief among them is my argument based on the cancellability test. I then consider whether a potential strategy that variabilists might be tempted to adopt is promising. The lesson to be drawn is that bound interpretations of Bambi sentences are pragmatic rather than semantic.