Graduate studies at Western
Mind 109 (435):443-454 (2000)
|Abstract||A sentence containing a number of definite descriptions, each lying within the scope of its predecessor, is naturally read as asserting the uniqueness of a sequence of objects satisfying the descriptions. The project of providing a general uniform procedure for eliminating embedded definite descriptions that gets this and other logical forms right is impeded by several puzzles.|
|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.
Stephen Schiffer (2005). Russell's Theory of Definite Descriptions. Mind 114 (456):1135-1183.
Keith S. Donnellan (1966). Reference and Definite Descriptions. Philosophical Review 75 (3):281-304.
Francesco Pupa (2010). On the Russellian Reformation. Philosophical Studies 147 (2):247 - 271.
Stefano Predelli (2003). Russellian Description and Smith's Suicide. Acta Analytica 18 (1-2):125-141.
Delia Graff Fara (2003). Desires, Scope, and Tense. Philosophical Perspectives 17 (1):141-163.
Berit Brogaard (2007). The but Not All: A Partitive Account of Plural Definite Descriptions. Mind and Language 22 (4):402–426.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads17 ( #78,201 of 740,515 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #61,957 of 740,515 )
How can I increase my downloads?