Michael O'Rourke
Abstract
Many philosophers of language have held that a truth-conditional semantic account can explain the data motivating the distinction between referential and attributive uses of definite descriptions, but I believe this is a mistake. I argue that these data also motivate what I call “dual-aspect” uses as a distinct but closely related type. After establishing that an account of the distinction must also explain dual-aspect uses, I argue that the truth-conditional Semantic Model of the distinction cannot. Thus, the Semantic Model cannot explain the data for which it is developed and so fails as an account of the referential/attributive distinction.Author's Profile
My notes
Similar books and articles
Semantics and the Dual‐Aspect use of Definite Descriptions.Michael O’Rourke - 1998 - Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 79 (3):264–288.
Conversational implicature and the referential use of descriptions.Thomas D. Bontly - 2005 - Philosophical Studies 125 (1):1 - 25.
Pragmatics, semantic undetermination and the referential/attributive distinction.A. Bezuidenhout - 1997 - Mind 106 (423):375-409.
Kripke’s metalinguistic apparatus and the analysis of definite descriptions.Edward Kanterian - 2011 - Philosophical Studies 156 (3):363-387.
Referentially Used Descriptions: A Reply to Devitt.Kent Bach - 2007 - European Journal of Analytic Philosophy 3 (2):33-48.
Descriptions: Points of Reference.Kent Bach - 2004 - In Marga Reimer & Anne Bezuidenhout (eds.), Descriptions and Beyond. Clarendon Press. pp. 189-229.
The semantic significance of the referential-attributive distinction.Howard K. Wettstein - 1983 - Philosophical Studies 44 (2):187--96.
Analytics
Added to PP
2009-01-28
Downloads
44 (#267,802)
6 months
1 (#451,971)
2009-01-28
Downloads
44 (#267,802)
6 months
1 (#451,971)
Historical graph of downloads