been noted by a number of commentators, although context is interpreted in a variety of ways. Typically, however, the issue of context appears to be noted as part of arguments that have a different analytical emphasis. In the process of sorting out reasons that Kripke's NTR appears to be superior to other theories in its ability to interpret meaning, Kripke's own approach to context, which is connected to such concepts of his as the causal theory and rigid designators, emerges as a feature of analysis of his work, as well as of critique of competing theories.
It has been noted in earlier chapters that Frege accounts for the reference or meaning of a proper name in terms of the sense in which it is expressed and that for Frege, interpretation of a name or more exactly an identity statement that includes a name for the object that the name designates must be derived purely from its sense. When Frege says that the "sense of a proper name is grasped by everybody who is sufficiently familiar with the language or totality of designations to which it belongs," he is implying that sense is connected to the public context of language. That is, the thought behind a statement is a function of conditions under which the expression can reach meaning.
As Walker notes, Frege is not engaged by the task of determining whether a name in isolation does or does not have meaning. Frege, says Walker, "begins with the occurrence of terms in complete sentences . . . . In analysing the `meaning' of proper names we must begin from the fact that proper names are used typically in the context of complete sentences about the individual they name, and work from there." Just as the statement-context is essential for logical analysis of meaning, the public context is essential for logical analysis of the statement itself. Frege makes his own point about sense and public context by citing the linguistic environment, but it includes as well the environment of cul...