Loading field map
The philosophy of language asks how words and sentences manage to be about the world. The subfield of reference and truth examines the most fundamental layer of that question: how singular terms pick out individual things, how general terms apply to classes of things, and how the truth or falsity of whole sentences depends on those connections. Its central concern is the relation between language and reality—whether that relation is direct, mediated by thought, socially constructed, or in some cases impossible to establish at all.
Two concepts anchor the field. Reference is the relation between a linguistic expression and the thing or things it stands for. The proper name "Aristotle" refers to a particular ancient Greek philosopher; the common noun "tiger" refers to tigers generally; the definite description "the current president of France" refers to whoever happens to hold that office. Truth is the property a sentence has when things are as it says they are. "Snow is white" is true because snow is white. The subfield investigates how these two phenomena connect: does a sentence's truth depend entirely on the reference of its parts? What happens when a term fails to refer—does the sentence containing it still have a truth value? And what makes a referring expression refer to one thing rather than another?
These questions matter because so much else in philosophy depends on them. If we cannot say how language hooks onto the world, we cannot explain how scientific theories describe reality, how historical claims can be accurate, or how two people can disagree about the same subject matter. The stakes are metaphysical as well as linguistic: the nature of reference determines whether our language gives us access to an objective world or merely reflects our own conceptual schemes.
The modern subfield begins with the work of Gottlob Frege in the late nineteenth century. Frege distinguished between the sense (Sinn) of an expression and its reference (Bedeutung). The sense is the mode of presentation—the way the referent is given to a thinker. The reference is the actual object picked out. "The morning star" and "the evening star" have different senses but the same reference, the planet Venus. This distinction explained how identity statements could be informative: "The morning star is the evening star" is not trivial, because it connects two different modes of presentation of the same object.
Frege's framework treated reference as mediated by sense. A proper name referred to its bearer by expressing a sense that uniquely identified that bearer. This view, later refined by Bertrand Russell, became known as the descriptivist theory of names. Russell argued that ordinary proper names are actually abbreviated definite descriptions: "Aristotle" means something like "the student of Plato who tutored Alexander the Great." On this account, the name refers to whatever satisfies the description. The theory had a striking consequence: if no object satisfies the description, the name fails to refer, and sentences containing it are false rather than meaningless.
The descriptivist picture dominated for decades. It offered a clean account of how reference works: words connect to things through the descriptions speakers associate with them. But it faced serious problems. Saul Kripke's lectures in 1970, later published as Naming and Necessity, exposed the theory's weaknesses. If "Aristotle" meant a description, then the statement "Aristotle taught Alexander" would be a trivial truth, not a substantive historical discovery. Worse, speakers can use a name correctly while associating false or wildly inaccurate descriptions with it. Most people cannot describe Gödel accurately, yet they still refer to him when they say "Gödel." Kripke argued that names are rigid designators: they pick out the same object in every possible world, whereas descriptions pick out whatever happens to satisfy them.
Kripke's alternative, developed alongside work by Keith Donnellan and Hilary Putnam, became known as the causal-historical theory of reference. On this view, a name refers to its bearer through a chain of communication stretching back to an initial baptism. Parents name a child; others learn the name from them; each speaker's use of the name refers to the original bearer because of this causal connection, not because of any description the speaker associates with it. The theory explained how we can refer to things we know almost nothing about, and how later discoveries can correct earlier beliefs about the referent.
Putnam extended the same style of argument to natural kind terms like "water," "gold," and "tiger." He argued that these terms do not refer by satisfying descriptions either. A substance that looked and tasted like water but had a different chemical structure would not be water, because "water" refers to whatever shares the underlying nature of the stuff we call water. This view, often called semantic externalism, holds that the reference of our terms is fixed partly by the world itself, not just by what is in our heads. Putnam's slogan—"meaning just ain't in the head"—captured the radical implication: two speakers could have identical mental states yet refer to different things if their environments differed.
The causal-historical theory was a genuine revolution in the field. It shifted attention from what speakers believe about referents to the social and historical chains that connect language to the world. But it faced its own difficulties. What exactly counts as the right kind of causal connection? If someone points at the wrong object during a baptism, or if a chain of transmission passes through speakers who misunderstand the term, reference can go astray. Later philosophers, including Gareth Evans and John McDowell, proposed hybrid views that combined causal elements with some descriptive content to handle these problem cases.
While the theory of reference focused on how terms pick out objects, a parallel strand of the subfield asked how sentences get their truth values. The dominant framework came from Alfred Tarski's work on truth in the 1930s. Tarski showed how to define truth for a formal language by specifying, for each sentence, the conditions under which it is true. His famous schema—"Snow is white" is true if and only if snow is white—seemed trivial, but it provided a rigorous method for constructing truth definitions without paradox.
Donald Davidson transformed Tarski's technical apparatus into a general theory of meaning. Davidson argued that a theory of truth for a language, of the kind Tarski had constructed for formal languages, could serve as a theory of meaning for natural languages. If we know the truth conditions of every sentence, we know what the sentences mean. This approach had a powerful advantage: it explained how finite speakers can understand infinitely many sentences. A compositional theory shows how the meaning of a complex sentence depends on the meanings of its parts and their arrangement.
Davidson's program faced a challenge from Michael Dummett, who argued that truth conditions are the wrong starting point for meaning. Dummett pointed out that many sentences—mathematical statements about infinite domains, for instance—have truth conditions we cannot recognize or verify. If meaning is given by truth conditions, then we could never learn or manifest our understanding of such sentences. Dummett proposed instead that meaning should be given by assertibility conditions: what counts as evidence for or against a sentence. This debate between truth-conditional and verificationist approaches to meaning remains live, though most philosophers of language continue to work within some version of the truth-conditional framework.
One persistent difficulty for any theory of reference is the existence of terms that fail to refer. "Pegasus," "Sherlock Holmes," and "the present king of France" are meaningful expressions, yet there is no object for them to pick out. Russell's famous theory of descriptions handled this by analyzing "the present king of France" as a complex quantificational claim: "There exists exactly one thing that is presently king of France, and that thing is bald." On this analysis, "The present king of France is bald" is simply false, because the existence claim fails. The sentence is meaningful without needing a referent for the description.
But proper names that fail to refer are harder to handle. If "Pegasus" is a name, and names refer by causal chains, then a name with no original referent has no chain to follow. Some philosophers, following Kripke, treat fictional names as a separate case: they refer to fictional entities, which exist in a qualified sense within the fiction. Others, following Saul Kripke's later work on empty names, argue that such names are genuinely referential failures and that sentences containing them lack truth values. The problem connects to broader questions about fiction, pretense, and the ontology of nonexistent objects.
A more recent development has been the attempt to naturalize reference—to explain it in terms of the causal and informational relations studied by the natural sciences. Fred Dretske and Jerry Fodor proposed that a term refers to whatever it carries information about, in the technical sense of information theory. A mental representation of a cow refers to cows because cow-stimuli reliably cause that representation to occur. This approach promised to integrate the philosophy of language with cognitive science and biology.
The naturalistic program faces a well-known difficulty: the problem of error. If a representation of a cow is sometimes caused by a horse on a dark night, then the representation carries information about both cows and horses. What makes it a representation of cows rather than horses? Fodor's proposed solution invoked asymmetric dependence: the representation refers to cows because its connection to horses depends on its connection to cows, but not vice versa. Whether this solution works remains disputed. The broader question—whether reference can be explained in purely naturalistic terms or requires irreducibly semantic or normative notions—continues to divide the field.
The causal-historical theory already emphasized the social character of reference: most speakers inherit their terms from others rather than fixing reference themselves. But later work went further in exploring how social practices constitute reference. Tyler Burge argued that the meaning of many terms depends on the linguistic community's experts, not on individual speakers. A person who believes that arthritis is a disease of the muscles still refers to arthritis, because the term's reference is fixed by medical specialists. This social externalism extended Putnam's externalism from natural kinds to all sorts of terms.
This strand of thought connects the philosophy of language to the philosophy of social science. If reference is socially constituted, then the objectivity of our claims depends on the reliability of our social practices of term introduction and transmission. Some philosophers, influenced by the later Wittgenstein, have argued that reference is ultimately a matter of social convention and practice rather than any deep metaphysical relation. On this view, the question "What makes a term refer to its object?" is answered by describing the practices within which the term has a use, not by discovering a hidden connection between word and world.
The subfield today is characterized by a settled core and active frontiers. The causal-historical theory of names and natural kind terms remains the default position, though with acknowledged complications and hybrid refinements. The truth-conditional approach to meaning, in Davidson's tradition, continues to dominate, though it has been enriched by work in formal semantics that integrates insights from linguistics. The debate between externalism and internalism about mental content remains unresolved, with significant implications for the philosophy of mind.
Several newer developments have reshaped the field. The rise of two-dimensional semantics, associated with David Chalmers and Frank Jackson, attempted to reconcile the externalist insights of Kripke and Putnam with a role for descriptive content in explaining thought and communication. Work on context sensitivity and indexicals, following David Kaplan, has shown that the reference of expressions like "I," "here," and "now" depends on the context of utterance in ways that the classical theories did not fully capture. And the growing influence of pragmatism and inferentialism, particularly through the work of Robert Brandom, has challenged the priority of reference and truth altogether, arguing that meaning should be understood in terms of the inferential roles expressions play in our practices.
The field's enduring questions remain open. Whether reference is ultimately a natural relation or a social construction, whether truth is a substantive property or a deflationary device, and whether our language genuinely latches onto an independent reality are not settled questions. What the subfield provides is a rigorous set of tools for investigating them: distinctions between sense and reference, theories of descriptions and rigid designation, formal definitions of truth, and careful attention to the ways language actually functions in scientific, social, and everyday contexts.