Definite descriptions, I shall argue, have two possible functions. 1] They are used to refer to what a speaker wishes to talk about, but they are also used quite. Keith Donnellan, “Reference and Definite Descriptions”. Due Feb 13, by 10am; Points 5; Submitting a discussion post; Available after Feb 2, at 12am. Keith Sedgwick Donnellan was an American philosopher and Professor ” Reference and Definite Descriptions” has been one of.
|Published (Last):||12 September 2012|
|PDF File Size:||1.40 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||14.20 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
One problem with strategies of this nature is that there fails to be a principled basis in the terminology of Devitt and Sterelny for determining what the content of these descriptions is to be. To see this we need merely recognize that even though two men say Ralph and Norton may turn the switch simultaneously, it is still the case that we can recognize two independent minimal events; one where Ralph turns the switch and one where Norton turns the switch. Edit criterion description Delete criterion row This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Description of criterion view longer description Range threshold: And as we saw above even in languages that deploy determiners, it is not clear that the determiners are behaving as quantificational operators.
In other worlds we will draw on other descriptive contents. If there is no present king of France, then an utterance containing such an expression is somehow defective. Public users can however freely search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter. It is possible to understand CooperHeimChemlaSchlenkerand Romoli as holding that the maximality component is presupposed. Nonexistent ObjectsNew Haven: So, for example, 11 could be taken to have the following logical form.
Donnfllan Review 75 3: The unwanted ambiguity objection returns as well if we allow that different people will associate different bundles of properties with a name or at least weight those properties differently.
Susanna Domnellan – – Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 93 1: To the contrary, he literally expresses the proposition that there is at least one murderer of Smith who is insane.
PragmaticsNew York: How does a wide scope story help us in this case? Donnellan uses a variety of locutions in trying to capture what is special about the referential use: From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. But is this analysis right? The prospects for a unified explanation for determiner behavior seems remote.
Recall from section 4. It is when the case system weakens deifnite determiners begin to appear——an idea that is offered in Abraham Examples of the kinds of syntactic considerations they had in mind include island constraints like the following. George Allen and Unwin,and New York: Genoveva Marti – – Dialectica 62 1: Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content.
Keith Donnellan, “Reference and Definite Descriptions”
So, for example, I might know myself by acquaintance, but I know the tallest man in Iowa only under a description. In this instance not only does the teacher fail to know the identity of the cheater, but also fails to know whether or not there was a unique cheater perhaps there were several. Their proposal is applicable to all quantified expressions; not just the theory of descriptions. Oxford University Press, 13— Here Schoubye suggests that our truth value judgments firm up and flip from being indeterminate to being clear judgments of falsity.
Kripke descriptuons several reasons for thinking that this Gricean solution was preferable to an ambiguity thesis. So, as in the Ludlow and Segal analysis, the uniqueness claim is not part of what is asserted. Radical PragmaticsNew York: Everyone now recognizes that intermediate scope is a possibility in cases like 30 and 31but the question is just what mechanisms make it possible?
In what ways are they helpful and in what ways not? Sescriptions is to say, there are referential and quantificational uses of indefinite descriptions and these are a reflex of a genuine semantical ambiguity.
Interdisciplinary perspectivesOxford: If natural kinds like species feference sub-species can bear the parthood relation to one another, then one can extend the Sharvy parthood operator to these cases as well. Does it follow that we must admit two different kinds of descriptions quantificational and predicational? He talks of the thing that is “meant”; of something that the speaker has “in mind”.
For example ChastainDonnellanWilsonand Fodor and Sagheld that indefinite descriptions are ambiguous between referential and quantificational interpretations. Dwscriptions according to Ludlow and Segalif we combine this pragmatic distinction with the unified analysis of definite and indefinite descriptions there is something we can say about this last bit of residue.
Reference and Definite Descriptions
For Kripkeand Devitt this sort of approach was hopelessly circular. Devittand Reimer have argued that these cases are genuinely different in kind. Unfortunately, there are more sophisticated versions of these cases where simple relativization to events will not do.
We sometimes drop the outer parentheses when it is clear what the scope of the restricted quantifier is, and we sometimes add parentheses around the entire formula for disambiguation. For example, Elbourne has argued that the minimal situation story can suffice if there are subsituations containing only one bishop. When a person uses a description such as “Smith’s murderer” attributively, they mean to pick out the individual that fits that description, whoever or whatever it is.
A teacher announces the following to the class, with a single red haired student in the front row.
Classical, Early, and Medieval Prose and Writers: Speech ActsNew York: If there is a subsituation s1 with only one bishop and a subsituation s2 with one different bishop, there could be a containing situation s0 in which the bishops from those subsituations bless each other see Kroll and Elbournefor further discussion.