Russell's theory of definite descriptions

Mind 114 (456):1135-1183 (2005)
Abstract
The proper statement and assessment of Russell's theory depends on one's semantic presuppositions. A semantic framework is provided, and Russell's theory formulated in terms of it. Referential uses of descriptions raise familiar problems for the theory, to which there are, at the most general level of abstraction, two possible Russellian responses. Both are considered, and both found wanting. The paper ends with a brief consideration of what the correct positive theory of definite descriptions might be, if it is not the Russellian theory.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1093/mind/fzi1135
Options
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Revision history
Request removal from index
Download options
Our Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 25,727
Through your library
References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA
Intention-Sensitive Semantics.A. Stokke - 2010 - Synthese 175 (3):383-404.
Definite Descriptions Are Ambiguous.Felipe S. Amaral - 2008 - Analysis 68 (300):288-297.
Term Limits Revisited.Stephen Neale - 2008 - Philosophical Perspectives 22 (1):375-442.
The Role of Context in Contextualism.Martin Montminy - 2013 - Synthese 190 (12):2341-2366.

View all 8 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles
Reference and Definite Descriptions.Keith S. Donnellan - 1966 - Philosophical Review 75 (3):281-304.
Content, Thoughts, and Definite Descriptions.Peter Millican - 1990 - Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume 64 (1):167 - 220.
The Existence Entailments of Definite Descriptions.Paul Elbourne - 2010 - Linguistics and Philosophy 33 (1):1-10.
The Loss of Uniqueness.Zoltán Gendler Szabó - 2005 - Mind 114 (456):1185 - 1222.
Speaker's Reference and Semantic Reference.Saul A. Kripke - 1977 - In Peter A. French, Theodore E. Uehling Jr & Howard K. Wettstein (eds.), Studies in the Philosophy of Language. University of Minnesota Press. pp. 255-296.
Why Definite Descriptions Really Are Referring Terms.John-Michael Kuczynski - 2004 - Grazer Philosophische Studien 68 (1):45-79.
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.
Descriptions: Points of Reference.Kent Bach - 2004 - In Marga Reimer & Anne Bezuidenhout (eds.), Descriptions and Beyond. Clarendon Press. pp. 189-229.

Monthly downloads

Added to index

2009-01-28

Total downloads

128 ( #35,354 of 2,146,377 )

Recent downloads (6 months)

8 ( #91,304 of 2,146,377 )

How can I increase my downloads?

My notes
Sign in to use this feature


Discussion
Order:
There  are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.

Other forums