Citations of work:

Howard K. Wettstein (1981). Demonstrative Reference and Definite Descriptions.

29 found
Order:
Are we missing citations?

PhilPapers citations & references are currently in beta testing. We expect to add many more in the future.

Meanwhile, you can use our bibliography tool to import references for this or another work.

Or you can directly add citations for the above work:

Search for work by author name and title
Add directly by record ID

  1.  10
    Underdetermination, Domain Restriction, and Theory Choice.Mark Bowker - forthcoming - Mind and Language.
    It is often possible to know what a speaker intends to communicate without knowing what they intend to say. In such cases, speakers need not intend to say anything at all. Stanley and Szabó's influential survey of possible analysis of quantifier domain restriction is, therefore, incomplete and the arguments made by Clapp and Buchanan against Truth Conditional Compositionality and propositional speaker-meaning are flawed. Two theories should not always be viewed as incompatible when they associate the same utterance with different propositions, (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  2.  14
    Against Predicativism About Names.Jeonggyu Lee - forthcoming - Philosophical Studies:1-19.
    According to predicativism about names, names which occur in argument positions have the same type of semantic contents as predicates. In this paper, I shall argue that these bare singular names do not have the same type of semantic contents as predicates. I will present three objections to predicativism—the modal, the epistemic, and the translation objections—and show that they succeed even against the more sophisticated versions of predicativism defended by Fara and Bach.
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  3. Testimonial Knowledge Without Knowledge of What is Said.Andrew Peet - 2018 - Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 99 (1):65-81.
    This article discusses the following question: what epistemic relation must audiences bear to the content of assertions in order to gain testimonial knowledge? There is a brief discussion of why this issue is of importance, followed by two counterexamples to the most intuitive answer: that in order for an audience to gain testimonial knowledge that p they must know that the speaker has asserted p. It is then suggested that the argument generalises and can be made to work on different (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  4. Against the Russellian Open Future.Anders J. Schoubye & Brian Rabern - 2017 - Mind 126 (504): 1217–1237.
    Todd (2016) proposes an analysis of future-directed sentences, in particular sentences of the form 'will(φ)', that is based on the classic Russellian analysis of definite descriptions. Todd's analysis is supposed to vindicate the claim that the future is metaphysically open while retaining a simple Ockhamist semantics of future contingents and the principles of classical logic, i.e. bivalence and the law of excluded middle. Consequently, an open futurist can straightforwardly retain classical logic without appeal to supervaluations, determinacy operators, or any further (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  5.  6
    Saving Uniqueness.Massimiliano Vignolo - 2015 - Philosophia 43 (4):1177-1198.
    The purpose of this paper is to present a theory of referential uses of definite descriptions that is alternative to Neale’s theory of Gödelian completions but nonetheless assumes two tenets of Neale’s view: the Russellian analysis of definite descriptions is basically correct, i.e. definite descriptions are quantified NPs and referential uses are not to be explained in terms of the Gricean distinction between what is said and what is meant. The proposition said is the intuitive content of an assertion as (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  6.  28
    You Can Say What You Think: Vindicating the Effability of Our Thoughts.Delia Belleri - 2014 - Synthese 191 (18):4431-4450.
    The thesis of Ineffability has it that no proposition can be fully expressed by a sentence, this meaning that no sentence-type, or even sentence-token whose indexicality and ambiguities have been resolved, can fully encode a proposition. The thesis of the propositionality of thoughts has it that thoughts are propositional. An implication of the joint endorsement of these two theses is that thoughts are ineffable. The aim of this paper is to argue that this is not the case: there are effable (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  7. Definite Descriptions and Semantic Pluralism.Brendan Murday - 2014 - Philosophical Papers 43 (2):255-284.
    We pose two arguments for the view that sentences containing definite descriptions semantically express multiple propositions: a general proposition as Russell suggested, and a singular proposition featuring the individual who uniquely satisfies the description at the world-time of utterance. One argument mirrors David Kaplan's arguments that indexicals express singular propositions through a context-sensitive character. The second argument mirrors Kent Bach's and Stephen Neale's arguments for pluralist views about terms putatively triggering conventional implicatures, appositive, and nonrestrictive relative clauses. After presenting these (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  8.  52
    On What is Effable.Delia Belleri - 2013 - Thought: A Journal of Philosophy 2 (4):341-349.
    The Effability thesis has it that all propositions can be encoded by a sentence. By contrast, the Ineffability thesis has it that no proposition can be encoded by a sentence. In this article, I undermine an important motivation for the Ineffability thesis and advance a proposal concerning what is effable and what is not. My strategy will be as follows: First, I'll note that the Ineffability thesis assumes that propositions/thoughts are determinate. I'll point out that propositions/thoughts qua the things we (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  9.  62
    Kripke's Metalinguistic Apparatus and the Analysis of Definite Descriptions.Edward Kanterian - 2011 - Philosophical Studies 156 (3):363-387.
    This article reconsiders Kripke’s ( 1977 , in: French, Uehling & Wettstein (eds) Contemporary perspectives in the philosophy of language, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis) pragmatic, univocal account of the attributive-referential distinction in terms of a metalinguistic apparatus consisting of semantic reference and speaker reference. It is argued that Kripke’s strongest methodological argument supporting the pragmatic account, the parallel applicability of the apparatus to both names and definite descriptions, is successful only if descriptions are treated as designators in both attributive (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  10. Are Proper Names Rigid Designators?Pierre Baumann - 2010 - Axiomathes 20 (2-3):333-346.
    A widely accepted thesis in the philosophy of language is that natural language proper names are rigid designators, and that they are so de jure, or as a matter of the “semantic rules of the language.” This paper questions this claim, arguing that rigidity cannot be plausibly construed as a property of name types and that the alternative, rigidity construed as a property of tokens, means that they cannot be considered rigid de jure; rigidity in this case must be viewed (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  11. A Puzzle About Meaning and Communication.Ray Buchanan - 2010 - Noûs 44 (2):340-371.
  12.  82
    Referential/Attributive: A Scope Interpretation.Richard L. Mendelsohn - 2010 - Philosophical Studies 147 (2):167-191.
    There is a core to the referential/attributive distinction that reveals a propositional ambiguity that is scope-related and rooted in syntax.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  13. Definite Descriptions Are Ambiguous.Felipe S. Amaral - 2008 - Analysis 68 (4):288-297.
  14.  94
    Problems for a Quantificational Theory of Complex Demonstratives.David Braun - 2008 - Philosophical Studies 140 (3):335 - 358.
    This paper presents a number of objections to Jeffrey King's quantificational theory of complex demonstratives. Some of these objections have to do with modality, whereas others concern attitude ascriptions. Various possible replies are considered. The debate between quantificational theorists and direct reference theorists over complex demonstratives is compared with recent debates concerning definite descriptions.
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  15.  52
    The Argument From Binding.Paul Elbourne - 2008 - Philosophical Perspectives 22 (1):89-110.
    In some utterances, some material does not seem to be explicitly expressed in words, but nevertheless seems to be part of the literal content of the utterance rather than an implicature. I will call material of this kind implicit content. The following are some relevant examples from the literature. (1) Everyone was sick. (2) I haven’t eaten. (3) It’s raining. In the case of (1), we are supposed to have asked Stephen Neale how his dinner party went last night (Neale, (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  16. Term Limits Revisited.Stephen Neale - 2008 - Philosophical Perspectives 22 (1):375-442.
  17.  43
    Definite Descriptions, Reference, and Inference.Marián Zouhar - 2007 - Theoria 73 (1):28-45.
  18. Conversational Implicature and the Referential Use of Descriptions.Thomas D. Bontly - 2005 - Philosophical Studies 125 (1):1 - 25.
    This paper enters the continuing fray over the semantic significance of Donnellan’s referential/attributive distinction. Some holdthat the distinction is at bottom a pragmatic one: i.e., that the difference between the referential use and the attributive use arises at the level of speaker’s meaning rather the level of sentence-or utterance-meaning. This view has recently been challenged byMarga Reimer andMichael Devitt, both of whom argue that the fact that descriptions are regularly, that is standardly, usedto refer defeats the pragmatic approach. The present (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  19.  33
    A Description Theory of Singular Reference.Francesco Orilia - 2003 - Dialectica 57 (1):7–40.
    According to the received view, descriptivism is a dead end in an attempt to account for singular reference by proper names, indexicals and possibly even incomplete descriptions, for they require referentialism. In contrast to this, I argue for an application of the former to all kinds of singular terms, indexicals in particular, by relying on a view of incomplete descriptions as elliptical in a pragmatic sense. I thus provide a general analysis of singular reference. The proposed approach is in line (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  20. A Description Theory of Singular Reference.Francesco Orilia - 2003 - Dialectica 57 (1):7-40.
    According to the received view, descriptivism is a dead end in an attempt to account for singular reference by proper names, indexicals and possibly even incomplete descriptions, for they require referentialism. In contrast to this, I argue for an application of the former to all kinds of singular terms, indexicals in particular, by relying on a view of incomplete descriptions as elliptical in a pragmatic sense. I thus provide a general analysis of singular reference. The proposed approach is in line (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  21.  38
    Russellian Description and Smith's Suicide.Stefano Predelli - 2003 - Acta Analytica 18 (1-2):125-141.
    When discussing the distinction between referential and attributive uses of definite descriptions, Keith Donnellan also mentions cases such as ‘Smith’s murderer is insane’, uttered in a scenario in which Smith committed suicide. In this essay, I defend a two-fold thesis: (i) the alleged intuition that utterances of ‘Smith’s murderer is insane’ are true in the scenario in question is independent from the phenomenon of referential uses of definite description, and, most importantly, (ii) even if such intuition is granted semantic relevance, (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  22. Indexicality and Deixis.Geoffrey Nunberg - 1993 - Linguistics and Philosophy 16 (1):1--43.
    Words like you, here, and tomorrow are different from other expressions in two ways. First, and by definition, they have different kinds of meanings, which are context-dependent in ways that the meanings of names and descriptions are not. Second, their meanings play a different kind of role in the interpretations of the utterances that contain them. For example, the meaning of you can be paraphrased by a description like "the addressee of the utterance." But an utterance of (1) doesn't say (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   52 citations  
  23.  98
    Incomplete Descriptions.Marga Reimer - 1992 - Erkenntnis 37 (3):347 - 363.
    Standard attempts to defend Russell's Theory of Descriptions against the problem posed by incomplete descriptions, are discussed and dismissed as inadequate. It is then suggested that one such attempt, one which exploits the notion of a contextually delimited domain of quantification, may be applicable to incomplete quantifier expressions which are typically treated as quantificational: expressions of the form AllF's, NoF's, SomeF's, Exactly eightF's, etc. In this way, one is able to retain the plausible claim that such expressions ought to receive (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  24.  10
    Intrinsic Reference and the New Theory.Laird Addis - 1989 - Midwest Studies in Philosophy 14 (1):241-257.
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  25. Mustn't Whatever is Referred to Exist?Gilbert Plumer - 1989 - Southern Journal of Philosophy 27 (4):511-528.
    Some hold that proper names and indexicals are “Kaplan rigid”: they designate their designata even in worlds where the designata don’t exist. An argument they give for this is based on the analogy between time and modality. It is shown how this argument gains forcefulness at the expense of carefulness. Then the argument is criticized as forming a part of an inconsistent philosophical framework, the one with which David Kaplan and others operate. An alternative account of a certain class of (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  26.  14
    Donnellan's Distinctions.Rod Bertolet - 1986 - Australasian Journal of Philosophy 64 (4):477 – 487.
  27.  37
    The Figure-Ground Model for the Explanation of the Determination of Indexical Reference.Lawrence D. Roberts - 1986 - Synthese 68 (3):441 - 486.
  28.  22
    Russell on the Semantics and Pragmatics of Indexicals.Lawrence Roberts - 1984 - Philosophia 14 (1-2):111-127.
  29.  72
    The Semantic Significance of the Referential-Attributive Distinction.Howard K. Wettstein - 1983 - Philosophical Studies 44 (2):187--96.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   8 citations