Ideas from 'Reference and Definite Descriptions' by Keith Donnellan [1966], by Theme Structure
[found in 'Naming, Necessity, and Natural Kinds' (ed/tr Schwartz,Stephen P.) [Cornell 1979,0-8014-9861-9]].
green numbers give full details |
back to texts
|
expand these ideas
5. Theory of Logic / F. Referring in Logic / 2. Descriptions / a. Descriptions
|
7760
|
Russell only uses descriptions attributively, and Strawson only referentially [Lycan]
|
5. Theory of Logic / F. Referring in Logic / 2. Descriptions / b. Definite descriptions
|
5811
|
A definite description can have a non-referential use
|
|
5812
|
Definite descriptions are 'attributive' if they say something about x, and 'referential' if they pick x out
|
|
5814
|
'The x is F' only presumes that x exists; it does not actually entail the existence
|
19. Language / B. Reference / 4. Descriptive Reference / b. Reference by description
|
10435
|
A definite description 'the F' is referential if the speaker could thereby be referring to something not-F [Sainsbury]
|
|
10451
|
Donnellan is unclear whether the referential-attributive distinction is semantic or pragmatic [Bach]
|
|
5813
|
A description can successfully refer, even if its application to the subject is not believed
|
19. Language / B. Reference / 5. Speaker's Reference
|
5815
|
Whether a definite description is referential or attributive depends on the speaker's intention
|