Linguistics and Philosophy

, Volume 33, Issue 1, pp 1–10 | Cite as

The existence entailments of definite descriptions

Research Article


Contrary to a claim made by Kaplan (Mind 114:933–1003, 2005) and Neale (Mind 114:809–871, 2005), the readings available to sentences containing definite descriptions embedded under propositional attitude verbs and conditionals do pose a significant problem for the Russellian theory of definite descriptions. The Fregean theory of descriptions, on the other hand, deals easily with the relevant data.


Definite descriptions Propositional attitudes Conditionals Presupposition 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Beaver D. (1997) Presupposition. In: Benthem J., ter Meulen A. (eds) Handbook of logic and language. Elsevier/MIT Press, Amsterdam/Cambridge, MA, pp 939–1008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Elbourne P. (2005) Situations and individuals. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  3. Elbourne P. (2008) Demonstratives as individual concepts. Linguistics and Philosophy 31: 409–466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Frege G. (1892) Über Sinn und Bedeutung. Zeitschrift für Philosophie und Philosophische Kritik 100: 25–50Google Scholar
  5. Glanzberg M. (2007) Definite descriptions and quantifier scope: Some Mates cases reconsidered. European Journal of Analytic Philosophy 3(2): 133–158Google Scholar
  6. Heim I. (1991) Artikel und Definitheit. In: Stechow A., Wunderlich D. (eds) Semantik: Ein internationales Handbuch der zeitgenössischen Forschung. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, pp 487–535Google Scholar
  7. Heim I. (1992) Presupposition projection and the semantics of attitude verbs. Journal of Semantics 9: 183–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Kaplan D. (2005) Reading ‘On Denoting’ on its centenary. Mind 114: 933–1003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Karttunen L. (1973) Presuppositions of compound sentences. Linguistic Inquiry 4: 169–193Google Scholar
  10. Karttunen L. (1974) Presupposition and linguistic context. Theoretical Linguistics 1: 181–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kripke S. (2005) Russell’s notion of scope. Mind 114: 1005–1037CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. May R. (1985) Logical form: Its structure and derivation. MIT Press, Cambridge MAGoogle Scholar
  13. Neale S. (1990) Descriptions. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  14. Neale S. (2005) A century later. Mind 114: 809–871CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Neale S. (2007) Heavy hands, magic, and scene-reading traps. European Journal of Analytic Philosophy 3(2): 77–132Google Scholar
  16. Ross, J. (1967). Constraints on variables in syntax. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
  17. Rothschild D. (2007) Presuppositions and scope. Journal of Philosophy 104: 71–106Google Scholar
  18. Russell B. (1905) On denoting. Mind 14: 479–493CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Strawson P. (1950) On referring. Mind 59: 320–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Szabolcsi A. (2003) The syntax of scope. In: Baltin M., Collins C. (eds) The handbook of contemporary syntactic theory. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 607–633Google Scholar
  21. von Fintel, K. (2004). Would you believe it? The King of France is back! (Presuppositions and truth-value intuitions). In M. Reimer & A. Bezuidenhout (Eds.), Descriptions and beyond: An interdisciplinary collection of essays on definite and indefinite descriptions and other related phenomena (pp. 315– 341). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Whitehead A. N., Russell B. (1927). Principia mathematica (Vol. 1, 2nd ed.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Linguistics, Queen MaryUniversity of LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations