- New
-
Topics
- All Categories
- Metaphysics and Epistemology
- Value Theory
- Science, Logic, and Mathematics
- Science, Logic, and Mathematics
- Logic and Philosophy of Logic
- Philosophy of Biology
- Philosophy of Cognitive Science
- Philosophy of Computing and Information
- Philosophy of Mathematics
- Philosophy of Physical Science
- Philosophy of Social Science
- Philosophy of Probability
- General Philosophy of Science
- Philosophy of Science, Misc
- History of Western Philosophy
- Philosophical Traditions
- Philosophy, Misc
- Other Academic Areas
- Journals
- Submit material
- More
An ambiguity test for definite descriptions
Philosophical Studies 111 (1):81-95 (2002)
Abstract
Donnellan makes a convincing case for two distinct uses ofdefinite descriptions. But does the difference between the usesreflects an ambiguity in the semantics of descriptions? This paperapplies a linguistic test for ambiguity to argue that the differencebetween the uses is not semantically significantAuthor's Profile
Other Versions
No versions found
My notes
Similar books and articles
Based Virtue Ethics 53–67 Ben Caplan/Quotation and Demonstration 69–80 Adam Sennet/An Ambiguity Test for Definite Descriptions 81–95. [REVIEW]Andrew D. Cling - 2002 - Philosophical Studies 111 (295).
Contextualism, Pragmatics and Definite Descriptions.Massimiliano Vignolo - 2011 - Lodz Papers in Pragmatics 7 (2):291-307.
Russellianism and referential uses of descriptions.Neil Feit - 2003 - Philosophical Studies 115 (2):99 - 122.
The Ambiguity Thesis vs. Kripke's Defence of Russell: Further Developments.Murali Ramachandran & Nadja Rosental - 2000 - Philosophical Writings 14:49-57.
Are “Attributive” Uses of Definite Descriptions Really Attributive?Ilhan Inan - 2006 - Kriterion - Journal of Philosophy 20 (1):7-13.
Nonattributive and Nonreferential Uses of Definite Descriptions.Maria Matuszkiewicz - 2024 - Philosophia 52 (2):305-323.
An assessment of the argument from convention.Andrei Moldovan - 2016 - Discusiones Filosóficas 17 (28):15 - 34.
Are “Attributive” Uses of Definite Descriptions Really Attributive?İlhan İnan Boğaziçi - 2006 - Kriterion - Journal of Philosophy 1 (20):7-13.
Wettstein on definite descriptions.William K. Blackburn - 1988 - Philosophical Studies 53 (2):263 - 278.
Analytics
Added to PP
2009-01-28
Downloads
128 (#172,159)
6 months
10 (#430,153)
2009-01-28
Downloads
128 (#172,159)
6 months
10 (#430,153)
Historical graph of downloads
Author's Profile
Citations of this work
Rational supererogation and epistemic permissivism.Robert Weston Siscoe - 2021 - Philosophical Studies 179 (2):571-591.
References found in this work
Reference and definite descriptions.Keith S. Donnellan - 1966 - Philosophical Review 75 (3):281-304.
The case for referential descriptions.Michael Devitt - 2004 - In Marga Reimer & Anne Bezuidenhout (eds.), Descriptions and beyond. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 234--260.
On Testing for Conversational Implicature.Jerrold M. Sadock - 1978 - In Peter Cole (ed.), Syntax and Semantics: Pragmatics. Academic Press. pp. 281–297.
Philosophy without ambiguity: a logico-linguistic essay.Jay David Atlas - 1989 - New York: Oxford University Press.
PhilPapers logo by Andrea Andrews and Meghan Driscoll.
This site uses cookies and Google Analytics (see our terms & conditions for details regarding the privacy implications). Use of this site is subject to terms & conditions.
All rights reserved by The PhilPapers Foundation
Server: philpapers-web-667477cd97-9l5tj dc2