Incomplete descriptions and the underdetermination problem

• Authors: Andrei Moldovan
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

The purpose of this paper is to discuss two phenomena related to the semantics of definite descriptions: that of incomplete uses of descriptions, and that of the underdetermination of  referential uses of descriptions. The Russellian theorist has a way of accounting for incomplete uses of descriptions by appealing to an account of quantifier domain restriction, such as the one proposed in Stanley and Szabó (2000a). But, I argue, the Russellian is not the only one in a position to appeal to such an account of incomplete uses of descriptions. Proponents of other theories, such as the Fregean, which does not treat descriptions as quantifiers, might benefit from this account of domain restriction. In the second part of the paper I discuss referential uses of incomplete definite descriptions. Relative to such uses, Wettstein (1981) and others have argued that the Russellian theory faces a problem of underdetermination of semantic content. Neale (2004) has replied to this objection showing why it does not pose a threat to the Russellian theory. Again, I argue that not only the Russellian, but also the Fregean can subscribe to Neale’s (2004) suggestion.

Keywords

EN

incomplete definite descriptions; quantifier domain restriction; referential uses; underdetermination

• Publisher: Uniwersytet Łódzki. Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego
• Journal: Research in Language
• Year: 2015
• Volume: 13
• Issue: 4
• Pages: 352-367

Dates

published

2015-12-30

Contributors

author

Andrei Moldovan

• University of Salamanca

References

• Bach, K. (1994). Conversational Impliciture. Mind and Language, 9(2), 124-162.
• Bach, K. (2000). Quantification, qualification and context: a reply to Stanley and Szabó. Mind and Language, 15(2&3), 262-283.
• Bach, K. (2004). Descriptions: Points of Reference. in M. Reimer & A. Bezuidenhout (Eds.), Descriptions and Beyond (189-229). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Buchanan, R., & Ostertag, G. (2005). Has the problem of incompleteness rested on a mistake? Mind, 114(456), 889-913.
• Carston, R. (2002). Linguistic Meaning, Communicated Meaning and Cognitive Pragmatics’. Mind and Language 17, 127-48.
• Collins, J. 2007. Syntax, More or Less. Mind, 116(464), 805-850.
• Corazza, E. (2006). Referring and Describing: Rehearsing the Referential/Attributive Distinction. Research in Language, 4, 31-55.
• Devitt, M. (2007). Referential Descriptions and Conversational Implicatures. European Journal of Analytic Philosophy, 3(2), 7-32.
• Elbourne, P. (2008). The argument from binding. Philosophical Perspectives, 22(1), 89-110.
• Elbourne, P. (2013). Definite Descriptions, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Elgardo, R., & Stainton, R. (2004). Shorthand, Syntactic Ellipsis, and the Pragmatic Determinants of What is Said. Mind and Language, 19, 442-71.
• Fintel, K. von (1994). Restrictions on quantifier domains. (Dissertation). University of Massachusetts at Amherts.
• Heim, I., & Kratzer, A. (1998). Semantics in Generative Grammar. Blackwell Textbooks in Linguistics, Oxford: Blackwell.
• Kratzer, A. (2004). Covert Quantifier Domain Restrictions. Talk at the Milan Meeting, Palazzo Feltrinelli, Gargnano.
• Kripke, S. (1977). Speaker's Reference and Semantic Reference. Midwest Studies in Philosophy, 2, 255-276.
• Neale, S. (1990). Descriptions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Neale, S. (2000). On being explicit: comments on Stanley and Szabo, and on Bach. Mind and Language, 15(2&3), 284-294.
• Neale, S. (2004). This, That, and the Other. In M. Reimer & A. Bezuidenhout (Eds.), Descriptions and Beyond (68-82). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Pagin, P. (2005). Compositionality and Context. In G. Preyer & G. Peter (Eds.), Contextualism in Philosophy: Knowledge, Meaning, and Truth (303-348). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Pupa, F., & Troseth, E. (2011). Syntax and Interpretation. Mind and Language, 26(2), 185-209.
• Recanati F. (1993). Direct Reference: From Language to Thought. Oxford: Blackwell.
• Recanati, F. (2004). Literal Meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Reimer, M. (1992). Incomplete descriptions, Erkenntnis, 37(3), 347-363.
• Reimer, M. (1998). Donnellan’s Distinction/Kripke’s Test. Analysis, 58(2), 89-100.
• Russell, B. (1957). Mr. Strawson on referring. Mind, 66(263), 385-389.
• Salmon, N. (2004). The good, the bad, and the ugly. In M. Reimer & A. Bezuidenhout (Eds.), Descriptions and Beyond (230-260). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Schiffer, S. (1995). Descriptions, indexicals, and belief reports: Some dilemmas (but not the ones you expect). Mind, 104(413), 107-131.
• Sennet, A. (2002). An ambiguity test for definite descriptions. Philosophical Studies, 111(1), 81-95.
• Stanley, J. C. (2002). Nominal restriction. In G. Peter & G. Preyer (Eds.), Logical Form and Language (365-390). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Stanley, J. C., & Szabó, Z. G. (2000a). On Quantifier Domain Restriction. Mind and Language, 15(2&3), 219-261.
• Stanley, J. C., & Szabó, Z. G. (2000b). Reply to Bach and Neale. Mind and Language, 15(2&3), 295-298.
• Stojanovic, I. (2002). Incomplete Definite Descriptions, Demonstrative Completion and Redundancy. In K. Striegnitz, et al. (Eds.), Special Issue: The Language Sections of the ESSLLI-01 Student Session, Human Language Technology Theses.
• Strawson, P. F. (1950). On Referring. Mind, 59, 320-344.
• Wettstein, H. K. (1981). Demonstrative reference and definite descriptions. Philosophical Studies, 40(2), 241-57.

Identifiers

DOI

10.1515/rela-2015-0034