Donnellan: “Reference and Definite Descriptions”. TWO USES OF . sentence “ Keith asserted that Smith’s murderer is insane.” To capture the. Keith Donnellan, “Reference and Definite Descriptions”. Due Feb 13, by 10am; Points 5; Submitting a discussion post; Available after Feb 2, at 12am. Keith Donnellan, Joseph Almog, and Paolo Leonardi function is the referential use of definite description, in which the speaker uses it to refer to something.
|Published (Last):||7 April 2016|
|PDF File Size:||3.48 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||16.78 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
If natural kinds like species and sub-species can bear the parthood relation to one another, then one can extend the Sharvy parthood operator to these cases as well.
The interesting feature of this example is that the uniqueness implications of the definite descriptions remain problematic, for they imply that there is a unique satisfier of the description in each event. On the other hand, once the free variables are interpreted the effect comes to very much the same thing: Russell has not been alone in thinking that descriptions and definite determiners donnelllan important.
The problem is that the Russellian analysis seems to turn a contingent proposition into a necessary proposition.
And, as Donnellan is at pains to emphasize pp. Hence names cannot be rigidified descriptions. Direct Reference and Definite Descriptions.
Keith S. Donnellan, Reference and definite descriptions – PhilPapers
See Everett and Hofweber and French and Wettstein for papers on these general issues, and see Zaltafor a robust defense of the nonexistent object strategy. We want to know precisely why a pronoun looks like a definite description here, but an indefinite description there.
Kripke also stressed that this is not really a point about conditional or modal sentences—the same point can be made for simple declarative sentences evaluated in a counterfactual situation.
Aristotle might have had none of the properties that we ordinarily associate with his name. Of course, having referred to it, we presumably will then ascribe some properties to it.
But notice that because the bishops bless each other, it appears there is no unique individual that satisfies either description in the consequent of Civil War American History: To understand this distinction, consider the following cases. The Interface between Language and RealityCambridge: For qnd it is now standard to think of indefinite descriptions following the copula as always being predicational, and deflnite is a widespread belief that definite descriptions following the copula are often predicational.
Saul Kripke gave a series of three lectures at Princeton University inlater published as Naming and Necessity in which he argued against descriptivism and sketched the causal-historical theory of reference according to which each proper name necessarily designates a particular object and that the identity of the object so designated is determined by the history of the name’s use.
Keith Donnellan – Wikipedia
Representing Thoughts and LanguagePh. The argument for this turns on cases where these expressions are embedded in propositional attitude environments, as in 14a and 14b.
First, he argues that the question whether a description is used referentially or attributively cannot be reduced to the question whether the speaker knows of some particular thing that it fits the description uniquely p.
The hypothesis is that it is functioning as a multi-purpose case marker, and when it is marking for genitive case, possessive meaning is one possible outcome. donnlelan
The Existence Entailments of Descriptionss Descriptions. Sign in Create an account.
Consider 30from Ludlow and Neale and 31 from Kripke. Genoveva Marti – – Dialectica 62 1: Gx So, as in the Ludlow and Segal analysis, the uniqueness claim is not keitn of what is asserted.
Even stronger, it appears that there are numerous examples involving quantified expressions that suffer the same fate as incomplete descriptions.