Philosophical Studies

, Volume 164, Issue 1, pp 41–59 | Cite as

Descriptions as variables

Article

Abstract

On a popular view dating back to Russell, descriptions, both definite and indefinite alike, work syntactically and semantically like quantifiers. I have an argument against Russell's view. The argument supports a different picture: descriptions can behave syntactically and semantically like variables. This basic idea can be implemented in very different systematic analyses, but, whichever way one goes, there will be a significant departure from Russell. The claim that descriptions are variables is not new: what I offer is a new way of defending it. The argument centers on attitude reports. I argue that we should recognize a new reading of descriptions under attitude reports, which I call ‘singular opaque’. The existence of this reading cannot be explained on the traditional Russellian view, and demands a switch to the variable view. Along the way, some interesting new facts about attitude reports come to light.

Keywords

Descriptions Attitude verbs Variables Anaphora De dicto De re 

References

  1. Barwise, J., & Cooper, R. (1981). Generalized quantifiers and natural language. Linguistics and Philosophy, 4(2), 159–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Chierchia, G. (1992). Anaphora and dynamic binding. Linguistics and Philosophy, 15(2), 111–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cresswell, M. J. (1990). Entities and indices. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cumming, S. (2008). Variabilism. Philosophical Review, 117(4), 525–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Elbourne, P. (2005). Situations and individuals. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  6. Fodor, J. D. (1970). The linguistic description of opaque contexts. Ph.D. thesis, MIT.Google Scholar
  7. Frege, G. (1892/1997). On Sinn and Bedeutung. In M. Beaney (Ed.), The Frege reader. UK: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
  8. Gendler Szabó, Z. (2010). Specific, yet opaque. In: M. Aloni, H. Bastiaanse, T. de Jager, P. van Ormondt, & K. Schulz (Eds.), Proceedings of the Amsterdam colloquium 2009. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  9. Geurts, B., & Beaver, D. I. (2011). Discourse representation theory. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of philosophy (Fall 2011 Edition), http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2011/entries/discourse-representation-theory/.
  10. Heim, I. (1982). The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases. Ph.D. thesis, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
  11. Heim, I. (1983). File change semantics and the familiarity theory of definiteness. In R. Bäuerle, C. Schwarze, & A. von Stechow (Eds.), Meaning, use, and the interpretation of language. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  12. Heim, I. (1990). E-type pronouns and donkey anaphora. Linguistics and Philosophy, 13(2), 77–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Heim, I., & Kratzer, A. (1998). Semantics in generative grammar. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  14. Hintikka, J. (1962). Knowledge and belief. USA: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Hintikka, J. (1969). On the logic of perception. In Models for modalities. Dordrecht-Holland: Reidel.Google Scholar
  16. Kadmon, N. (1987). On unique and non-unique reference and asymmetric quantification. Ph.D. thesis, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
  17. Kamp, H. (1981). A theory of truth and semantic representation. In J. Groenendijk, T. Janssen, & M. Stokhof (Eds.), Formal methods in the study of language (pp. 277–322). Amsterdam: Mathematical Centre.Google Scholar
  18. Keshet, E. (2008). Good intensions: Paving two roads to a theory of the de re/de dicto distinction. Ph.D. thesis, MIT.Google Scholar
  19. Neale, S. (1990). Descriptions. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  20. Ninan, D. (2012). Counterfactual attitudes and multi-centered worlds. Semantics and Pragmatics, 5(5), 1–57.Google Scholar
  21. Nouwen, R. (2003). Plural pronominal anaphora in context: Dynamic aspects of quantification. Ph.D. thesis, University of Utrecht.Google Scholar
  22. Percus, O. (2000). Constraints on some other variables in syntax. Natural Language Semantics, 8(3), 173–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Quine, W. V. O. (1956). Quantifiers and propositional attitudes. Journal of Philosophy, 53, 177–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Reinhart, T. (1997). Quantifier scope: How labor is divided between QR and choice functions. Linguistics and Philosophy, 20(4), 335–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Romoli, J., & Sudo, Y. (2009). De re/de dicto ambiguity and presupposition projection. In Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung, 13.Google Scholar
  26. Russell, B. (1905). On denoting. Mind, 14(56), 479–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Santorio, P. (2012). Reference and monstrosity. Philosophical Review, 121(3), 359–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Schwarz, B. (2011). Long distance indefinites and choice functions. Language and Linguistics Compass, 5(12), 880–897.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Schwarzschild, R. (2002). Singleton indefinites. Journal of Semantics, 19(3), 289–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of LeedsLeedsUK
  2. 2.Australian National UniversityCanberraAustralia

Personalised recommendations