European Journal of Analytic Philosophy 6 (2):47 - 66 (2010)
In this paper I offer a defence of a Russellian analysis of the referential uses of incomplete (mis)descriptions, in a contextual setting. With regard to the debate between a unificationist and an ambiguity approach to the formal treatment of definite descriptions (introduction), I will support the former against the latter. In 1. I explain what I mean by "essentially" incomplete descriptions: incomplete descriptions are context dependent descriptions. In 2. I examine one of the best versions of the unificationist “explicit” approach given by Buchanan and Ostertag. I then show that this proposal seems unable to treat the normal uses of misdescriptions. I then accept the challenge of treating misdescriptions as a key to solving the problem of context dependent descriptions. In 3. I briefly discuss Michael Devitt’s and Joseph Almog’s treatments of referential descriptions, showing that they find it difficult to explain misdescriptions. In 4. I suggest an alternative approach to DD as contextuals, under a normative epistemic stance. Definite descriptions express (i) what a speaker should have in mind in using certain words in a certain context and (ii) what a normal speaker is justified in saying in a context, given a common basic knowledge of the lexicon. In 5. I define a procedure running on contextual parameters (partiality, perspective and approximation) as a means of representing the role of pragmatics as a filter for semantic interpretation. In 6. I defend my procedural approach against possible objections concerning the problem of the boundaries between semantics and pragmatics, relying on the distinction between semantics and theory of meaning
|Keywords||Definite Descriptions Contextual Reasoning Stephen Neale Michael Devitt Joseph Almog Bertrand Russell John McCarthy|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Updating the Turing Test. Wittgenstein, Turing and Symbol Manipulation.Penco Carlo - 2012 - Open Journal of Philosophy 2 (3):189-194.
Similar books and articles
Descriptions: Points of Reference.Kent Bach - 2004 - In Marga Reimer & Anne Bezuidenhout (eds.), Descriptions and Beyond. Clarendon Press. pp. 189-229.
An Abuse of Context in Semantics: The Case of Incomplete Definite Descriptions.Ernest Lepore - manuscript
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.
The Real Distinction Between Descriptions and Indexicals.Manuel García-Carpintero - 2005 - Teorema: International Journal of Philosophy 24 (3):49-74.
Philosophical Essays: Natural Language: What It Means and How We Use It.Scott Soames - 2009 - Princeton University Press.
Reference and Definite Descriptions.Keith S. Donnellan - 1966 - Philosophical Review 75 (3):281-304.
Descriptions: An Annotated Bibliography.Berit Brogaard - 2010 - Oxford Annotated Bibliographies Online.
The Existence Entailments of Definite Descriptions.Paul Elbourne - 2010 - Linguistics and Philosophy 33 (1):1-10.
Embedded Definite Descriptions: Russellian Analysis and Semantic Puzzles.ST Kuhn - 2000 - Mind 109 (435):443-454.
Referentially Used Descriptions: A Reply to Devitt.Kent Bach - 2007 - European Journal of Analytic Philosophy 3 (2):33-48.
Unembedded Definite Descriptions and Relevance.Robert J. Stainton - 1998 - Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses 11:231-239.
Added to index2010-10-10
Total downloads159 ( #29,687 of 2,178,142 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #112,599 of 2,178,142 )
How can I increase my downloads?