David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Noûs 47 (3):496-533 (2013)
It is widely agreed that sentences containing a non-denoting description embedded in the scope of a propositional attitude verb have true de dicto interpretations, and Russell's (1905) analysis of definite descriptions is often praised for its simple analysis of such cases, cf. e.g. Neale (1990). However, several people, incl. Elbourne (2005, 2009), Heim (1991), and Kripke (2005), have contested this by arguing that Russell's analysis yields incorrect predictions in non-doxastic attitude contexts. Heim and Elbourne have subsequently argued that once certain facts about presupposition projection are fully appreciated, the Frege/Strawson analysis of definite descriptions has an explanatory advantage. In this paper, I argue that both Russell's analysis and the Frege/Strawson analysis face a serious problem when it comes to the interaction of attitude verbs and definite descriptions. I argue that the problem observed by Elbourne, Heim, and Kripke is much more general than standardly assumed and that a solution requires a revision of the semantics of definite and indefinite descriptions. I outline the conditions that are required to solve the problem and present an analysis couched in dynamic semantics which can provide a solution. I conclude by discussing some further issues related to propositional attitude verbs that complicate a fully general solution to the problem
|Keywords||Descriptions Presupposition Propositional Attitudes Dynamic Semantics|
|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
Jeffrey C. King (2007). The Nature and Structure of Content. Oxford University Press.
John Hawthorne & David Manley (2012). The Reference Book. Oxford University Press.
Robert Stalnaker (2002). Common Ground. Linguistics and Philosophy 25 (5-6):701-721.
Citations of this work BETA
Emar Maier (2015). Parasitic Attitudes. Linguistics and Philosophy 38 (3):205-236.
Anders J. Schoubye (2012). Against the Argument From Convention. Linguistics and Philosophy 35 (6):515-532.
Julie Hunter (2014). Structured Contexts and Anaphoric Dependencies. Philosophical Studies 168 (1):35-58.
Similar books and articles
Paul Elbourne (2010). The Existence Entailments of Definite Descriptions. Linguistics and Philosophy 33 (1):1-10.
Irene Heim (1982). The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases. Dissertation, UMass Amherst
Alex Barber (2005). Co-Extensive Theories and Unembedded Definite Descriptions. In Reinaldo Elugardo & Robert J. Stainton (eds.), Ellipsis and Nonsentential Speech. Springer 185–201.
Marga Reimer & Anne Bezuidenhout (eds.) (2004). Descriptions and Beyond. Oxford University Press.
Scott Soames (2009). Philosophical Essays: Natural Language: What It Means and How We Use It. Princeton University Press.
Keith S. Donnellan (1966). Reference and Definite Descriptions. Philosophical Review 75 (3):281-304.
Paolo Santorio (2013). Descriptions as Variables. Philosophical Studies 164 (1):41-59.
Paulo Roberto Margutti Pinto, Wittgenstein and Semantic Presuppositions Generated by Definite Descriptions in Subject-Position.
ST Kuhn (2000). Embedded Definite Descriptions: Russellian Analysis and Semantic Puzzles. Mind 109 (435):443-454.
Wojciech Rostworowski (2011). Rigid Designation and Definite Descriptions. Filozofia Nauki 4.
Emar Maier (2007). Proper Names as Rigid Presuppositions. In Estella Puig-Waldmüller (ed.), Proceedings of Sinn Und Bedeutung 11. 418-32.
Delia Graff Fara (2003). Desires, Scope, and Tense. Philosophical Perspectives 17 (1):141-164.
Philippe Schlenker (2007). Anti-Dynamics: Presupposition Projection Without Dynamic Semantics. [REVIEW] Journal of Logic, Language and Information 16 (3):325--356.
Manuel García-Carpintero (2005). The Real Distinction Between Descriptions and Indexicals. Teorema: International Journal of Philosophy 24 (3):49-74.
Kent Bach (2004). Descriptions: Points of Reference. In Marga Reimer & Anne Bezuidenhout (eds.), Descriptions and Beyond. Clarendon Press 189-229.
Added to index2011-10-04
Total downloads111 ( #34,911 of 1,907,063 )
Recent downloads (6 months)18 ( #36,333 of 1,907,063 )
How can I increase my downloads?