Graduate studies at Western
Mind and Language 22 (4):402–426 (2007)
|Abstract||A number of authors in favor of a unitary account of singular descriptions have alleged that the unitary account can be extrapolated to account for plural definite descriptions. In this paper I take a closer look at this suggestion. I argue that while the unitary account is clearly onto something right, it is in the end empirically inadequate. At the end of the paper I offer a new partitive account of plural definite descriptions that avoids the problems with both the unitary account and standard Russellian analyses.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Paul Elbourne (2010). The Existence Entailments of Definite Descriptions. Linguistics and Philosophy 33 (1):1-10.
ST Kuhn (2000). Embedded Definite Descriptions: Russellian Analysis and Semantic Puzzles. Mind 109 (435):443-454.
Keith S. Donnellan (1966). Reference and Definite Descriptions. Philosophical Review 75 (3):281-304.
Helen Morris Cartwright (1993). On Plural Reference and Elementary Set Theory. Synthese 96 (2):201 - 254.
Alex Oliver & Timothy Smiley (2005). Plural Descriptions and Many-Valued Functions. Mind 114 (456):1039-1068.
Berit Brogaard (2010). Descriptions. In Oxford Annotated Bibliographies Online.
Berit Brogaard (2010). Descriptions: An Annotated Bibliography. Oxford Annotated Bibliographies Online.
Berit Brogaard (2007). Sharvy's Theory of Definite Descriptions Revisited. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 88 (2):160–180.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads13 ( #95,639 of 739,489 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #61,680 of 739,489 )
How can I increase my downloads?