An ambiguity test for definite descriptions
Philosophical Studies 111 (1):81 - 95 (2002)
| Abstract | Donnellan (1966) makes a convincing case for two distinct uses ofdefinite descriptions. But does the difference between the usesreflects an ambiguity in the semantics of descriptions? This paperapplies a linguistic test for ambiguity to argue that the differencebetween the uses is not semantically significant. | |||||||||
| 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: 5,653 |
| External links |
 |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesBerit Brogaard (2007). Sharvy's Theory of Definite Descriptions Revisited. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 88 (2):160–180.
Francesco Pupa (2008). Ambiguous Articles: An Essay On The Theory Of Descriptions. Dissertation, The Graduate Center, CUNY
Delia Graff Fara (2003). Desires, Scope, and Tense. Philosophical Perspectives 17 (1):141-163.
ST Kuhn (2000). Embedded Definite Descriptions: Russellian Analysis and Semantic Puzzles. Mind 109 (435):443-454.
Michael Mckinsey (1979). The Ambiguity of Definite Descriptions. Theoria 45 (2):78-89.
Keith S. Donnellan (1966). Reference and Definite Descriptions. Philosophical Review 75 (3):281-304.
Brendan S. Gillon (1990). Ambiguity, Generality, and Indeterminacy: Tests and Definitions. Synthese 85 (3):391 - 416.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2009-01-28Total downloads47 ( #23,056 of 548,984 )Recent downloads (6 months)4 ( #19,181 of 548,984 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
