Contextualism, Pragmatics and Definite Descriptions

Lodz Papers in Pragmatics 7 (2):291-307 (2011)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Contextualism, Pragmatics and Definite Descriptions Very few philosophers and linguists doubt that definite descriptions have attributive uses and referential uses. The point of disagreement concerns whether the difference in uses is grounded on a difference in meaning. The Ambiguity Theory holds while the Implicature Theory denies that definite descriptions are ambiguous expressions, having an attributive meaning and a referential meaning. Contextualists have attempted to steer between the Ambiguity Theory and the Implicature Theory. I claim that the early contextualist account provided by Recanati and Bezuidehnout based on the idea that definite descriptions are semantically underdetermined and in need of a completion from the contextually available information through an optional top-down pragmatic process suffers from an explanatory gap.

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 101,247

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Analytics

Added to PP
2017-01-11

Downloads
33 (#685,336)

6 months
10 (#407,001)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Literal Meaning.François Récanati - 2002 - New York: Cambridge University Press.
Truth-Conditional Pragmatics.François Recanati - 2010 - Oxford, GB: Oxford University Press.
Descriptions.Stephen Neale - 1990 - MIT Press.
Descriptions.S. Neale - 1996 - Critica 28 (83):97-129.
Direct Reference.Francois Recanati - 1996 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 56 (4):953-956.

View all 14 references / Add more references