Procedural meaning and definite descriptions
The present work explores the possibility of conciliating the truth-conditional relevance of referential uses of definite descriptions with the assignment of a univocal linguistic meaning to these constructions. It is argued that conciliation is possible if we reject the thesis, central to the debat...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Análisis filosófico 2009-11, Vol.29 (2), p.173-184 |
---|---|
1. Verfasser: | |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng ; por |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 184 |
---|---|
container_issue | 2 |
container_start_page | 173 |
container_title | Análisis filosófico |
container_volume | 29 |
creator | Caso, Ramiro |
description | The present work explores the possibility of conciliating the truth-conditional relevance of referential uses of definite descriptions with the assignment of a univocal linguistic meaning to these constructions. It is argued that conciliation is possible if we reject the thesis, central to the debate between Russellians and ambiguity theorists, according to which referential uses are truth-conditionally relevant if and only if they constitute referential meanings. We sketch a framework within which the denial of that thesis has theoretical content, by drawing on the conceptual resources of Relevance Theory and on a pragmatic conception of reference, following Strawson (1950). The linguistic meaning of definite descriptions is analyzed as a procedural meaning (Blakemore 1987) that is semantically underdetermined with respect to both referential and attributive readings, and a pragmatic strategy for understanding this ambiguity is sketched. |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>scielo</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_scielo_journals_S1851_96362009000200005</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><scielo_id>S1851_96362009000200005</scielo_id><sourcerecordid>S1851_96362009000200005</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-s124t-4d0bb47baf912d0b9a16b279ebf5c206c9799960334fa033a359cc5f1cbbcefd3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNotj8tqwzAURLVoIY_mH_wBdbmSLNl3WUL6gEAKbdZGupKCgisHy_n_KLSbObOa4TywJe8Ur1FLvWCrnM8AulNdu2TPX9NI3l0nM1S_3qSYTpVJrnI-xBRnX0qmKV7mOKb8xB6DGbLf_HPNjm-7n-1HvT-8f25f93XmopnrxoG1TWtNQC5KR8O1FS16GxQJ0IQtImqQsgmmpJEKiVTgZC354OSavfztZop-GPvzeJ1SOey_7xr9XUMAIAAUACh5Ay67P-g</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype></control><display><type>article</type><title>Procedural meaning and definite descriptions</title><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><creator>Caso, Ramiro</creator><creatorcontrib>Caso, Ramiro</creatorcontrib><description>The present work explores the possibility of conciliating the truth-conditional relevance of referential uses of definite descriptions with the assignment of a univocal linguistic meaning to these constructions. It is argued that conciliation is possible if we reject the thesis, central to the debate between Russellians and ambiguity theorists, according to which referential uses are truth-conditionally relevant if and only if they constitute referential meanings. We sketch a framework within which the denial of that thesis has theoretical content, by drawing on the conceptual resources of Relevance Theory and on a pragmatic conception of reference, following Strawson (1950). The linguistic meaning of definite descriptions is analyzed as a procedural meaning (Blakemore 1987) that is semantically underdetermined with respect to both referential and attributive readings, and a pragmatic strategy for understanding this ambiguity is sketched.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1851-9636</identifier><language>eng ; por</language><publisher>SADAF</publisher><subject>PHILOSOPHY</subject><ispartof>Análisis filosófico, 2009-11, Vol.29 (2), p.173-184</ispartof><rights>This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>230,314,776,780,881</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Caso, Ramiro</creatorcontrib><title>Procedural meaning and definite descriptions</title><title>Análisis filosófico</title><addtitle>Anal. filos</addtitle><description>The present work explores the possibility of conciliating the truth-conditional relevance of referential uses of definite descriptions with the assignment of a univocal linguistic meaning to these constructions. It is argued that conciliation is possible if we reject the thesis, central to the debate between Russellians and ambiguity theorists, according to which referential uses are truth-conditionally relevant if and only if they constitute referential meanings. We sketch a framework within which the denial of that thesis has theoretical content, by drawing on the conceptual resources of Relevance Theory and on a pragmatic conception of reference, following Strawson (1950). The linguistic meaning of definite descriptions is analyzed as a procedural meaning (Blakemore 1987) that is semantically underdetermined with respect to both referential and attributive readings, and a pragmatic strategy for understanding this ambiguity is sketched.</description><subject>PHILOSOPHY</subject><issn>1851-9636</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2009</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNotj8tqwzAURLVoIY_mH_wBdbmSLNl3WUL6gEAKbdZGupKCgisHy_n_KLSbObOa4TywJe8Ur1FLvWCrnM8AulNdu2TPX9NI3l0nM1S_3qSYTpVJrnI-xBRnX0qmKV7mOKb8xB6DGbLf_HPNjm-7n-1HvT-8f25f93XmopnrxoG1TWtNQC5KR8O1FS16GxQJ0IQtImqQsgmmpJEKiVTgZC354OSavfztZop-GPvzeJ1SOey_7xr9XUMAIAAUACh5Ay67P-g</recordid><startdate>20091101</startdate><enddate>20091101</enddate><creator>Caso, Ramiro</creator><general>SADAF</general><scope>GPN</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20091101</creationdate><title>Procedural meaning and definite descriptions</title><author>Caso, Ramiro</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-s124t-4d0bb47baf912d0b9a16b279ebf5c206c9799960334fa033a359cc5f1cbbcefd3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng ; por</language><creationdate>2009</creationdate><topic>PHILOSOPHY</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Caso, Ramiro</creatorcontrib><collection>SciELO</collection><jtitle>Análisis filosófico</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Caso, Ramiro</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Procedural meaning and definite descriptions</atitle><jtitle>Análisis filosófico</jtitle><addtitle>Anal. filos</addtitle><date>2009-11-01</date><risdate>2009</risdate><volume>29</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>173</spage><epage>184</epage><pages>173-184</pages><issn>1851-9636</issn><abstract>The present work explores the possibility of conciliating the truth-conditional relevance of referential uses of definite descriptions with the assignment of a univocal linguistic meaning to these constructions. It is argued that conciliation is possible if we reject the thesis, central to the debate between Russellians and ambiguity theorists, according to which referential uses are truth-conditionally relevant if and only if they constitute referential meanings. We sketch a framework within which the denial of that thesis has theoretical content, by drawing on the conceptual resources of Relevance Theory and on a pragmatic conception of reference, following Strawson (1950). The linguistic meaning of definite descriptions is analyzed as a procedural meaning (Blakemore 1987) that is semantically underdetermined with respect to both referential and attributive readings, and a pragmatic strategy for understanding this ambiguity is sketched.</abstract><pub>SADAF</pub><tpages>12</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1851-9636 |
ispartof | Análisis filosófico, 2009-11, Vol.29 (2), p.173-184 |
issn | 1851-9636 |
language | eng ; por |
recordid | cdi_scielo_journals_S1851_96362009000200005 |
source | DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals |
subjects | PHILOSOPHY |
title | Procedural meaning and definite descriptions |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-02T22%3A10%3A33IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-scielo&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Procedural%20meaning%20and%20definite%20descriptions&rft.jtitle=An%C3%A1lisis%20filos%C3%B3fico&rft.au=Caso,%20Ramiro&rft.date=2009-11-01&rft.volume=29&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=173&rft.epage=184&rft.pages=173-184&rft.issn=1851-9636&rft_id=info:doi/&rft_dat=%3Cscielo%3ES1851_96362009000200005%3C/scielo%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_scielo_id=S1851_96362009000200005&rfr_iscdi=true |