Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Descriptions, truth value intuitions, and questions

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Linguistics and Philosophy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Since the famous debate between Russell (Mind 14: 479–493, 1905, Mind 66: 385–389, 1957) and Strawson (Mind 59: 320–344, 1950; Introduction to logical theory, 1952; Theoria, 30: 96–118, 1964) linguistic intuitions about truth values have been considered notoriously unreliable as a guide to the semantics of definite descriptions. As a result, most existing semantic analyses of definites leave a large number of intuitions unexplained. In this paper, I explore the nature of the relationship between truth value intuitions and non-referring definites. Inspired by comments in Strawson (Introduction to logical theory, 1964), I argue that given certain systematic considerations, one can provide a structured explanation of conflicting intuitions. I show that the intuitions of falsity, which proponents of a Russellian analysis often appeal to, result from evaluating sentences in relation to specific questions in context. This is shown by developing a method for predicting when sentences containing non-referring definites elicit intuitions of falsity. My proposed analysis draws importantly on Roberts (in: Yoon & Kathol (eds.) OSU working papers in Linguistics: vol. 49: Papers in Semantics 1998; in: Horn & Ward (eds.) Handbook of pragmatics, 2004) and recent research in the semantics and pragmatics of focus.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bäuerle R. (1983) Pragmatischsemantische Aspekte der NP-Interpretation. In: Faust M., Harweg R., Lehfeldt W., Wienold G. (eds) Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft, Sprachtypologie und Textlinguistik. Tübingen, Narr

    Google Scholar 

  • Beaver D.I., Clark B.Z. (2008) Sense and sensitivity: How focus determines meaning. Chicester, UK, Wiley Blackwell

    Google Scholar 

  • Beaver D.I., Zeevat H. (2007) Accommodation. In: Ramchand G., Reiss C. (eds) Oxford handbook of linguistic interfaces. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 503–539

    Google Scholar 

  • Elbourne P. (2005) Situations and individuals. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Elbourne, P. (2008). The existence entailments of definite descriptions. Available from http://semantic-sarchive.net/Archive/mFlNDgwN/teeodd.pdf (Unpublished ms.)

  • Fodor, J. D. (1970). The linguistic description of opaque contexts. Ph.D. thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Published in 1976 by Indiana University Linguistics Club and in 1979 in the Garland Series Outstanding Dissertations in Linguistics.

  • Frege G. (1892) On Sinn and Bedeutung. In: Beaney M. (eds) The Frege reader (1997). Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, pp 151–172

    Google Scholar 

  • Frege G. (1918) The thought. In: Beaney M. (eds) The Frege reader (1997). Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, pp 325–346

    Google Scholar 

  • Geurts B. (1999) Presuppositions and pronouns. Elsevier, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Geurts B. (2007) Existential import. In: Comorowski I., Heisinger K. (eds) Existence: Syntax and semantics. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 253–271

    Google Scholar 

  • Glanzberg, M. (2005). Presuppositions, truth values, and expressing propositions. In G. Preyer G. Peters (eds) Contextualism in philosophy: Knowledge, meaning, and truth. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Groenendijk, J., & Stokhof, M. (1984). Studies on the semantics of questions and the pragmatics of answers. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Amsterdam.

  • Hamblin C.L. (1973) Questions in Montague English. Foundations of Language 10: 41–53

    Google Scholar 

  • Hausser R. (1983) The syntax and semantics of English Mood. Questions and answers. Reidel, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Heim I. (1991) Artikel und Definitheit. In: Stechow A., Wunderlich D. (eds) Semantik: ein internationale Handbuch der zeitgenössichen Forschung. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, pp 487–535

    Google Scholar 

  • Kadmon N. (2001) Formal pragmatics. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Kadmon, N. (2009). Contrastive topics and the focal structure of questions. Available from http://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/jMzOTczN (Unpublished ms.)

  • Krifka, M. (1991). A compositional semantics for multiple focus constructions. Proceedings of SALT 1. Cornell University Working Papers in Linguistics, Ithaca, NY.

  • Krifka, M. (2001). For a structured meaning account of questions and answers. Audiatur Vox Sapientia. A Festschrift for Arnim von Stechow (pp. 287–320). Berlin: Academie Verlag.

  • Krifka, M. (2004). The semantics of questions and the focusation of answers. In Topic and focus: A cross-linguistic perspective (pp. 139–151). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

  • Lasersohn P. (1993) Existence presuppositions and background knowledge. Journal of Semantics 10: 113–122

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neale S. (1990) Descriptions. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, C. (1998). Information structure in discourse: Towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics. In J.-H. Yoon, & A. Kathol (Eds.), OSU working papers in linguistics: Vol. 49: Papers in semantics. Columbus, OH: Deptartmen of Linguistics, Ohio State University.

  • Roberts C. (2004) Context in dynamic interpretation. In: Horn L.R., Ward G. (eds) Handbook of pragmatics. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, pp 197–221

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, C. (2009). Forthcoming in C. Maienborn, K. von Heusinger, P. Portner (Eds.), An international handbook of natural language meaning. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

  • Rooth, M. (1985). Association with focus. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

  • Rooth M. (1992) A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1.1: 75–116

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rooth M. (1996) Focus. In: Lappin S. (eds) Handbook of contemporary semantic theory. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 271–297

    Google Scholar 

  • Russell B. (1905) On denoting. Mind 14: 479–493

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Russell B. (1957) Mr. Strawson on referring. Mind 66: 385–389

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scha, R. (1983). Logical foundations for question answering. Doctoral Dissertation, Groningen University.

  • Schoubye, A. J. (2010). Some presuppositions. http://www.schoubye.org/papers/SP.pdf (Unpublished ms.)

  • Stalnaker R.C. (1970) Pragmatics. Synthese 22(1/2): 272–289

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stalnaker R.C. (1974) Pragmatic presuppositions. In: Munitz M., Unger P. (eds) Semantics and philosophy. New York University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Stalnaker R.C. (1978) Assertion. In: Cole P. (eds) Syntax and Semantics 9. Academic Press, New York, pp 315–332

    Google Scholar 

  • Stalnaker R.C. (1998) On the representation of context. Journal of Logic, Language, and Information 7: 3–19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stalnaker, R. C. (2002). Common ground. Linguistics and Philosophy, 25 (701–721).

  • Strawson P.F. (1950) On referring. Mind 59: 320–344

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strawson P.F. (1952) Introduction to logical theory. Methuen, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Strawson, P. F. (1964). Identifying reference and truth-values. Theoria, 30, 96–118 (Reprinted in P. F. Strawson Logico-Linguistic Papers, Ashgate, London 1971).

  • van der Sandt R. (1992) Presupposition Projection as Anaphora Resolution. Journal of Semantics 9: 333–377

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • von Fintel K. (2004) Would you believe it? The King of France is back! (Presuppositions and truth-value intuitions). In: Bezuidenhout A., Reimer M. (eds) Descriptions and beyond. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 315–342

    Google Scholar 

  • von Fintel K. (2008) What is presupposition accommodation, again?. Philosophical Perspectives 22(1): 137–170

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • von Stechow, A. (1989). Focusing and background operators. In Arbeitspapier nr. 6. Fachgruppe Wissenschaft, Universität Konstanz.

  • von Stechow A. (1991). Current issues in the theory of focus. In: von Stechow D. & Wunderlich (Eds.) Semantik/semantics: An international handbook of contemporary research (pp. 804–825). Berlin: de Gruyter.

  • Yablo S. (2006) Non-catastrophic presupposition failure. In: Thomson J.J., Byrne A. (eds) Content and modality: Themes from the philosophy of Robert C. Stalnaker. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Yablo S. (2009) Must existence-questions have answers?. In: Chalmers D.J., Manley D., Wasserman R. (eds) Metametaphysics: New essays on the foundations of ontology. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 507–525

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Arché, University of St Andrews, St Andrews, Scotland, UK

    Anders J. Schoubye

Authors
  1. Anders J. Schoubye
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anders J. Schoubye.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Schoubye, A.J. Descriptions, truth value intuitions, and questions. Linguist and Philos 32, 583–617 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-010-9069-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-010-9069-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation