David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Linguistics and Philosophy 5 (3):355 - 398 (1982)
The formal semantics that we have proposed for definite and indefinite descriptions analyzes them both as variable-binding operators and as referring terms. It is the referential analysis which makes it possible to account for the facts outlined in Section 2, e.g. for the purely ‘instrumental’ role of the descriptive content; for the appearance of unusually wide scope readings relative to other quantifiers, higher predicates, and island boundaries; for the fact that the island-escaping readings are always equivalent to maximally wide scope quantifiers; and for the appearance of violations of the identity conditions on variables in deleted constituents. We would emphasize that this is not a random collection of observations. They cohere naturally with each other, and with facts about other phrases that are unambigously referential.We conceded at the outset of this paper that the referential use of an indefinite noun phrase does not, by itself, motivate the postulation of a referential interpretation. Our argument has been that the behavior of indefinites in complex sentences cannot be economically described, and certainly cannot be explained, unless a referential interpretation is assumed. It could be accounted for in pragmatic terms only if the whole theory of scope relations and of conditions on deletion could be eliminated from the semantics and incorporated into a purely pragmatic theory. But this seems unlikely
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
Jon Barwise & Robin Cooper (1981). Generalized Quantifiers and Natural Language. Linguistics and Philosophy 4 (2):159--219.
Keith S. Donnellan (1966). Reference and Definite Descriptions. Philosophical Review 75 (3):281-304.
Hans Reichenbach (1980). Elements of Symbolic Logic. Dover Publications.
P. F. Strawson (1964). Identifying Reference and Truth-Values. Theoria 30 (2):96-118.
Keith S. Donnellan (1968). Putting Humpty Dumpty Together Again. Philosophical Review 77 (2):203-215.
Citations of this work BETA
Berit Brogaard (2007). Attitude Reports: Do You Mind the Gap? Philosophy Compass 3 (1):93-118.
Delia Graff Fara (2013). Specifying Desires. Noûs 47 (2):250-272.
Peter Ludlow & Stephen Neale (1991). Indefinite Descriptions: In Defense of Russell. [REVIEW] Linguistics and Philosophy 14 (2):171 - 202.
Craige Roberts (1989). Modal Subordination and Pronominal Anaphora in Discourse. Linguistics and Philosophy 12 (6):683 - 721.
Similar books and articles
Adrian Brasoveanu (2011). Sentence-Internal Different as Quantifier-Internal Anaphora. Linguistics and Philosophy 34 (2):93-168.
Adrian Brasoveanu & Donka F. Farkas (2011). How Indefinites Choose Their Scope. Linguistics and Philosophy 34 (1):1-55.
Kent Bach (2007). Referentially Used Descriptions: A Reply to Devitt. European Journal of Analytic Philosophy 3 (2):33-48.
Marga Reimer & Anne Bezuidenhout (eds.) (2004). Descriptions and Beyond. Oxford University Press.
Murali Ramachandran & Nadja Rosental (2000). The Ambiguity Thesis Vs. Kripke's Defence of Russell: Further Developments. Philosophical Writings 14:49-57.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads126 ( #30,108 of 1,906,925 )
Recent downloads (6 months)8 ( #92,032 of 1,906,925 )
How can I increase my downloads?