Russell 13:36-47 (1993)
|Abstract||The principal question asked in this paper is: in the case of attributive usage, is the definite description to be analyzed as Russell said or is it to be treated as a referring expression, functioning semantically as a proper name? It answers by defending the former alternative.|
|Keywords||Kaplan Carnap Strawson attributive use referential use Russell|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
John-Michael Kuczynski (2004). A Non-Russellian Analysis of the Referential-Attributive Distinction. Pragmatics and Cognition 12 (2):253-294.
Massimiliano Vignolo (2012). Referential/Attributive: The Explanatory Gap of the Contextualist Theory. Dialectica 66 (4):621-633.
Edward Kanterian (2011). Kripke's Metalinguistic Apparatus and the Analysis of Definite Descriptions. Philosophical Studies 156 (3):363-387.
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.
Genoveva Marti (2008). Direct Reference and Definite Descriptions. Dialectica 62 (1):43–57.
Saul A. Kripke (1977). Speaker's Reference and Semantic Reference. In Peter A. French, Theodore E. Uehling Jr & Howard K. Wettstein (eds.), Studies in the Philosophy of Language. University of Minnesota Press.
Stephen Schiffer (2005). Russell's Theory of Definite Descriptions. Mind 114 (456):1135-1183.
Ilhan Inan (2006). Are "Attributive” Uses of Definite Descriptions Really Attributive? Kriterion 20:7-13.
Added to index2011-01-24
Total downloads7 ( #133,343 of 548,984 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #25,729 of 548,984 )
How can I increase my downloads?