Kaplan and Marti on definite descriptions
https://doi.org/10.25206/2542-0488-2023-8-4-84-88
EDN: HZLTCM
Abstract
Donnellan’s distinction between referential and attributive uses of definite descriptions gave rise to controversy between semantic and pragmatic accounts of referentially used descriptions. Kaplan adumbrated and Marti elaborated in detail a semantic account that assimilates referentially used definite descriptions with proper names in the sense of the theory of direct reference. I argue that the evidence Kaplan-Marti theory relies on is inappropriate, and conclude that KaplanMarti theory has no advantage over the pragmatic account of referential use in Donnellan’s sense.
About the Author
E. V. Borisov
Institute of Philosophy and Law of the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Borisov Evgeny Vasilyevich, Doctor of Philosophical Sciences, Associate Professor, Chief Researcher of Philosophy Department of the Institute of Philosophy and Law
AuthorID (RSCI): 278628
ResearcherID: T-3807-2017
AuthorID (SCOPUS): 56287727200
Novosibirsk
References
1. Donnellan K. Reference and Definite Descriptions // The Philosophical Review. 1966. Vol. 75, no. 3. P. 281–304. DOI: 10.2307/2183143. (In Engl.).
2. Russell B. On Denoting // Mind. 1905. Vol. 14, no. 4. P. 479–493. DOI: 10.1093/mind/XIV.4.479. (In Engl.).
3. Abbott B. Reference. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. 328 p. ISBN 9780199202577. (In Engl.).
4. Amaral F. S. Definite Descriptions Are Ambiguous // Analysis. 2008. Vol. 68, no. 4. P. 288–297. DOI: 10.1093/analys/68.4.288. (In Engl.).
5. Devitt M. Donnellan’s Distinction // Midwest Studies in Philosophy. 1981. Vol. 6, no. 1. P. 511–524. DOI: 10.1111/j.1475-4975.1981.tb00456.x. (In Engl.).
6. Ramachandran M. Methodological Reflections on Two Kripkean Strategies // Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society. 1995. Vol. 95, no. 1. P. 67–82. DOI: 10.1093/aristotelian/95.1.67. (In Engl.).
7. Reimer M. Donnellan’s Distinction/Kripke’s Test // Analysis. 1998. Vol. 58, no. 2. P. 89–100. DOI: 10.1093/analys/58.2.89. (In Engl.).
8. Reimer M. Descriptively Introduced Names // Descriptions and Beyond / Eds. M. Reimer, A. Bezuidenhout. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004. P. 613–629. (In Engl.).
9. Wettstein H. Demonstrative Reference and Definite Descriptions // Philosophical Studies. 1981. Vol. 40, no. 2. P. 241–257. DOI: 10.1007/bf00353794. (In Engl.).
10. Wettstein H. The Semantic Significance of the ReferentialAttributive Distinction // Philosophical Studies. 1983. Vol. 44, no. 2. P. 187–196. DOI: 10.1007/bf00354099. (In Engl.).
11. Bach K. Referential/Attributive // Synthese. 1981. Vol. 49, no. 2. P. 219–244. DOI: 10.1007/bf01064299. (In Engl.).
12. Kripke S. Speaker’s Reference and Semantic Reference // Midwest Studies in Philosophy. 1977. Vol. 2, no. 1. P. 255–276. DOI: 10.1111/j.1475-4975.1977.tb00045.x. (In Engl.).
13. Neale S. Descriptions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1990. 302 p. ISBN 0262640317. (In Engl.).
14. Berg J. Referential Attribution // Philosophical Studies. 1999. Vol. 96, no. 1. P. 73–86. DOI: 10.1023/A:1004283021977. (In Engl.).
15. Bezuidenhout A. Pragmatics, Semantic Underdetermination and the Referential/Attributive Distinction // Mind. 1997. Vol. 106, no. 423. P. 375–409. DOI: 10.1093/mind/106.423.375. (In Engl.).
16. Mendelsohn R. L. Referential/Attributive: A Scope Interpretation // Philosophical Studies. 2010. Vol. 147, no. 2. P. 167–191. DOI: 10.1007/s11098-008-9276-3. (In Engl.).
17. Recanati F. Referential/Attributive: A Contextualist Proposal // Philosophical Studies. 1989. Vol. 56, no. 3. P. 217–249. DOI: 10.1007/bf00354363. (In Engl.).
18. Kaplan D. Demonstratives: An Essay on the Semantics, Logic, Metaphysics and Epistemology of Demonstratives and Other Indexicals // Themes from Kaplan / Eds.: J. Almog, J. Perry, H. Wettstein. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989. P. 481–563. (In Engl.).
19. Marti G. The Essence of Genuine Reference // Journal of Philosophical Logic. 1995. Vol. 24, no. 3. P. 275–289. DOI: 10.1007/bf01344204. (In Engl.).
20. Marti G. The Question of Rigidity in New Theories of Reference // Nous. 2003. Vol. 37, no. 1. P. 161–179. DOI: 10.1111/1468-0068.00434. (In Engl.).
21. Marti G. Direct Reference and Definite Descriptions // Dialectica. 2008. Vol. 62, no. 1. P. 43–57. DOI: 10.1111/j.1746-8361.2008.01138.x. (In Engl.).
22. Marti G. Names, Descriptions and Causal Descriptions. Is the Magic Gone? // Topoi. 2020. Vol. 39, no. 2. P. 357–365. DOI: 10.1007/s11245-017-9525-1. (In Engl.).
23. Grice H. P. Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1989. 394 p. ISBN 0674852702. (In Engl.).
24. Kaplan D. Dthat // Syntax and Semantics. Vol. 9: Pragmatics / Ed. P. Cole. New York: Academic Press, 1978. P. 221–243. (In Engl.).
25. Donnellan K. Putting Humpty Dumpty Together Again // The Philosophical Review. 1968. Vol. 77, no. 2. P. 203–215. DOI: 10.2307/2183321. (In Engl.).
26. Donnellan K. Proper Names and Identifying Descriptions // Synthese. 1970. Vol. 21, no. 3/4. P. 335–358. DOI: 10.1007/BF00484804. (In Engl.).
27. Donnellan K. Speaker Reference, Descriptions, and Anaphora // Syntax and Semantics. Vol. 9: Pragmatics / Ed. P. Cole. New York: Academic Press, 1978. P. 47–68. (In Engl.).
Review
For citations:
Borisov E.V. Kaplan and Marti on definite descriptions. Omsk Scientific Bulletin. Series Society. History. Modernity. 2023;8(4):84-88. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.25206/2542-0488-2023-8-4-84-88. EDN: HZLTCM
Views:
5
JATS XML
Email this article 