Mind 109 (435):443-454 (2000)
AbstractA sentence containing a number of definite descriptions, each lying within the scope of its predecessor, is naturally read as asserting the uniqueness of a sequence of objects satisfying the descriptions. The project of providing a general uniform procedure for eliminating embedded definite descriptions that gets this and other logical forms right is impeded by several puzzles.
Similar books and articles
Unembedded Definite Descriptions and Relevance.Robert J. Stainton - 1998 - Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses 11:231-239.
The existence entailments of definite descriptions.Paul Elbourne - 2010 - Linguistics and Philosophy 33 (1):1-10.
Descriptions: Points of Reference.Kent Bach - 2004 - In Marga Reimer & Anne Bezuidenhout (eds.), Descriptions and Beyond. Clarendon Press. pp. 189-229.
Reference and definite descriptions.Keith S. Donnellan - 1966 - Philosophical Review 75 (3):281-304.
Russellian description and Smith’s suicide.Stefano Predelli - 2003 - Acta Analytica 18 (1-2):125-141.
The but not all: A partitive account of plural definite descriptions.Berit Brogaard - 2007 - Mind and Language 22 (4):402–426.
Co-extensive theories and unembedded definite descriptions.Alex Barber - 2005 - In Reinaldo Elugardo & Robert J. Stainton (eds.), Ellipsis and Nonsentential Speech. Springer. pp. 185–201.
Added to PP
Historical graph of downloads
References found in this work
On the Projection Problem for Presuppositions.Irene Heim - 1983 - In P. Portner & B. H. Partee (eds.), Formal Semantics - the Essential Readings. Blackwell. pp. 249--260.