Despite the importance Locke attaches to issues of language, this aspect of his philosophy has drawn comparatively little attention in the secondary literature. One reason for this neglect might be the disfavor into which what is commonly understood as his view has fallen. Locke is regarded as a “mentalist” who has been refuted by the arguments of Frege, Wittgenstein, Putnam, and their followers. Haven't we learned that meanings aren't in the head? Why bother with Locke at all?

One justification historians of philosophy are apt to give in such contexts is that the view in question has simply been the victim of uncharitable interpretation. This has certainly been the case with Locke's philosophy of language, from his day down to our own. Locke is not vulnerable to the standard arguments deployed against him, and his main rival, the causal theory of reference, is simply false (or so I shall argue).