How Often Do We Use a Definite Description to Talk About its Semantic Referent?
Kriterion 22:7-12 (2009)
| Abstract | This article has no associated abstract. (fix it) | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,865 |
| External links |
  Try with proxy. |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesM. D'Cruz (2000). A Theory of Ordinary Proper Names. Mind 109 (436):721-756.
Genoveva Marti (2008). Direct Reference and Definite Descriptions. Dialectica 62 (1):43–57.
Keith S. Donnellan (1966). Reference and Definite Descriptions. Philosophical Review 75 (3):281-304.
Steven Rieber (1998). The Concept of Personal Identity. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 58 (3):581-594.
Michael McKinsey (2010). Understanding Proper Names. Linguistics and Philosophy 33 (4):325-354.
Stephen Neale (1990). Descriptions. Mit Press.
Karel Lambert (1987). On the Philosophical Foundations of Free Description Theory. History and Philosophy of Logic 8 (1):57-66.
Francesco Pupa (2008). Ambiguous Articles: An Essay On The Theory Of Descriptions. Dissertation, The Graduate Center, CUNY
Christian Beyer (2001). A Neo-Husserlian Theory of Speaker's Reference. Erkenntnis 54 (3):277-297.
Ben Caplan (2005). Against Widescopism. Philosophical Studies 125 (2):167-190.
Analytics
Monthly downloads
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
|
Added to index2012-09-15Total downloads0Recent downloads (6 months)0How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
