An abuse of context in semantics: The case of incomplete definite descriptions
| Abstract | Critics and champions alike have fussed and fretted for well over fifty years about whether Russell’s treatment is compatible with certain alleged acceptable uses of incomplete definite descriptions,[2] where a description (the F( is incomplete just in case more than one object satisfies its nominal F, as in (1). | |||||||||
| 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: 5,709 |
| External links |
  Try with proxy. |
| Through your library | Only published papers are available at libraries |
Similar books and articlesNathan U. Salmon (1982). Assertion and Incomplete Definite Descriptions. Philosophical Studies 42 (1):37--45.
Marga Reimer & Anne Bezuidenhout (eds.) (2004). Descriptions and Beyond. Oxford University Press.
Keith S. Donnellan (1966). Reference and Definite Descriptions. Philosophical Review 75 (3):281-304.
Scott Soames (2009). Philosophical Essays: Natural Language: What It Means and How We Use It. Princeton University Press.
Marga Reimer (1992). Incomplete Descriptions. Erkenntnis 37 (3):347 - 363.
Carlo Penco (2010). Essentially Incomplete Descriptions. European Journal of Analytic Philosophy 6 (2).
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2009-01-28Total downloads39 ( #29,888 of 550,917 )Recent downloads (6 months)5 ( #15,270 of 550,917 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
