PhilArchive
open access
How Often Do We Use a Definite Description to Talk About its Semantic Referent?
In this paper I respond to the objections put forth by Kresimir Agbaba 22: 1-6) against my earlier paper 20: 7-13) in which I argue that given Donnellan's formulation|as well as Kripke's and Salmon's gen- eralized accounts|an attributive use of a denite description is a very rare linguistic phenomenon
Conceptio Open Archive
Analyze & explore related research in Conceptio
Connect this record directly into your research workflow or AI agent. Explore citations across open repositories, query full text, and export structured proof bundles.
This document is indexed with metadata only: full text is not available in the archive for this record. Open the official source ↗
Related documents
- Pragmatic ambiguity and Kripke’s dialogue against Donnellan#759804
- Are “Attributive” Uses of Definite Descriptions Really Attributive?#741601
- Yet another victim of Kripkenstein’s monster: dispositions, meaning, and privilege#708631
- Meaning in Motion#89676
- What We Tend to Mean#116986
Record · ID 741605
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Bring this data into your agent: Connect via MCP or API · 20 free credits to start · no card required
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive