Reference and descriptions

Andrea Bianchi
Table of contents

I am Andrea Bianchi, the author of the article you are reading. If I am telling the truth, as I invite you to believe, I am related in a peculiar way to two different expressions, a proper name (“Andrea”) and a definite description (“the author of the article you are reading”). Let us say that the name refers to, and the description, as used in this context, describes, or denotes, myself. But what exactly do the relations of referring and describing (denoting) consist in? The issue was, and still is, at the center of an intense debate in contemporary philosophy of language. As we shall see, different answers to this question reveal different understandings of how natural languages work.

Full-text access is restricted to subscribers. Log in to obtain additional credentials. For subscription information see Subscription & Price.

References

Acero, J.J. & P. Leonardi
(eds.) 2005 Facets of concepts. Poligrafo.Google Scholar
Almog, J., J. Perry & H. Wettstein
(eds.) 1989 Themes from Kaplan. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Amaral, F.S.
2008 Definite descriptions are ambiguous. Analysis 68: 288–97. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bach, K.
1981 Referential/attributive. Synthese 49: 219–44. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2004 Descriptions: points of reference. In Reimer & Bezuidenhout 2004.Google Scholar
Beaney, M.
1997a Introduction. In Beaney 1997b.Google Scholar
(ed.) 1997b The Frege reader. Blackwell.Google Scholar
Beaney, M., C. Penco & M. Vignolo
(eds.) 2007 Explaining the mental. Naturalist and non-naturalist approaches to mental acts and processes. Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Bianchi, A.
2005 Words as concepts. In Acero & Leonardi 2005.Google Scholar
Bianchi, A
2007 Speaking and thinking (or: a more Kaplanian way to a unified account of language and thought). In Beaney, Penco & Vignolo 2007 DOI: DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Braun, D.
1993 Empty names. Noûs 27: 449–69. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carnap, R.
1947 Meaning and necessity. A study in semantics and modal logic. University of Chicago Press. Second edition 1956.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Cole, P.
(ed.) 1978 Syntax and semantics, Vol. 9: Pragmatics. Academic Press.Google Scholar
Davidson, D. & G. Harman
(eds.) 1972 Semantics of natural language. Reidel. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Davidson, D. & J. Hintikka
(eds.) 1969 Words and objections. Essays on the work of W.V. Quine. Reidel. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Devitt, M.
1974 Singular terms. Journal of Philosophy 71: 183–205. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1981 Donnellan's distinction. Midwest Studies in Philosophy 6: 511–24. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2004 The case for referential descriptions. In Reimer & Bezuidenhout 2004.Google Scholar
Donnellan, K.S.
1966 Reference and definite descriptions. Philosophical Review 75: 281–304. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1968 Putting Humpty Dumpty together again. Philosophical Review 77: 203–15.Google Scholar
1970 Proper names and identifying descriptions. Synthese 21: 335–58. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1974 Speaking of nothing. Philosophical Review 83: 3–31. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1978 Speaker reference,descriptions and anaphora. In Cole 1978.Google Scholar
Evans, G.
1973 The causal theory of names. Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume 47: 187–208. Reprinted in Evans 1985. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1985 Collected Papers. Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Frege, G.
1892a Über Sinn und Bedeutung. Zeitschrift für Philosophie und philosophische Kritik 100: 25–50. Translated as On Sinn and Bedeutung in Beaney 1997b.Google Scholar
1892b Über Begriff und Gegenstand. Vierteljahrsschrift für wissenschaftliche Philosophie 16: 192–205. Translated as On concept and object in Beaney 1997b.Google Scholar
1918–19 Der Gedanke. Eine logische Untersuchung. Beiträge zur Philosophie des deutschen Idealismus 1: 58–77. Translated as Thought in Beaney 1997b.Google Scholar
Grice, H.P.
1969 Vacuous names. In Davidson & Hintikka 1969.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gunderson, K.
(ed.) 1975 Language, mind and knowledge. University of Minnesota Press.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Kaplan, D.
1978 Dthat. In Cole 1978.Google Scholar
1989a Demonstratives: An essay on the semantics, logic, metaphysics, and epistemology of demonstratives and other indexicals. In Almog, Perry & Wettstein 1989.Google Scholar
1989b Afterthoughts. In Almog, Perry & Wettstein 1989.Google Scholar
2005 Reading ‘On denoting’ on its centenary. Mind 114: 933–1003. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kripke, S.A.
1972 Naming and necessity. In Davidson & Harman 1972 Reprinted with a new introduction as Naming and necessity. Blackwell, 1980.Google Scholar
1977 Speaker's reference and semantic reference. Midwest Studies in Philosophy 2: 255–76. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1979 A puzzle about belief. In Margalit 1979.Google Scholar
Mackay, A.F.
1968 Mr. Donnellan and Humpty Dumpty on referring. Philosophical Review 77: 197–202. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Margalit, A.
(ed.) 1979 Meaning and use. Papers presented at the Second Jerusalem Philosophical Encounter April 1976. Reidel.Google Scholar
Neale, S.
1990 Descriptions. MIT Press.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Putnam, H.
1975a The meaning of ‘meaning’. In Gunderson 1975 Reprinted in Putnam 1975b.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1975b Mind, language and reality. Philosophical papers, volume 2. Cambridge University Press.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Reimer, M. & A. Bezuidenhout
(eds.) 2004 Descriptions and beyond. Clarendon Press.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Russell, B.
1905 On denoting. Mind 14: 479–93. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1911  Knowledge by acquaintance and knowledge by description. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 11: 108–28. Reprinted in Russell 1918.Google Scholar
Russell B.
1918 Mysticism and logic. Longmans, Green e Co. Reprinted by Dover in 2004.Google Scholar
Russell, B.
(1918–19) The philosophy of logical atomism. The Monist 28: 495–527 e 29: 32–63, 190–222 e 345–80. Reprinted in Russell 1956.Google Scholar
1956 Logic and knowledge. Essays 1901–1950. Edited by R.C. Marsh. Allen & Unwin. Reprinted by Routledge in 1992.Google Scholar
1957 Mr. Strawson on referring. Mind 66: 385–9. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Salmon, N.
1982 Assertion and incomplete definite descriptions. Philosophical Studies 42: 37–45. Reprinted in Salmon 2007. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1991 The pragmatic fallacy. Philosophical Studies 63: 83–97. Reprinted in Salmon 2007. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
SalmonN.
2005  Two conceptions of semantics. In Szabo 2005 Reprinted in Salmon 2007.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Salmon, N.
2007 Content, cognition, and communication. Philosophical papers, volume 2. Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Searle, J.R.
1958 Proper names. Mind 67: 166–73. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Smullyan, A.F.
1948 Modality and description. Journal of Symbolic Logic 13: 31–7. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Soames, S.
1994 Donnellan's referential/attributive distinction. Philosophical Studies 73: 149–68. Reprinted in Soames 2009. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2005 Why incomplete definite descriptions do not defeat Russell's theory of descriptions. Teorema 24: 7–30. Reprinted in Soames 2009.Google Scholar
2009 Philosophical essays, volume 1. Natural language: what it means and how we use it. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Strawson, P.F.
1950 On referring. Mind 59: 320–44. Reprinted in Strawson 1971. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1971 Logico-linguistic papers. Ashgate (Second edition 2004).Google Scholar
Szabó Z.G.
(ed.) 2005 Semantics versus pragmatics. Clarendon Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wettstein, H.K.
1981 Demonstrative reference and definite descriptions. Philosophical Studies 40: 241–57. Reprinted in Wettstein 1991. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1983  The semantic significance of the referential-attributive distinction. Philosophical Studies 44: 187–96. Reprinted in Wettstein 1991. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1991 Has semantics rested on a mistake? And other essays. Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
2004 The magic prism. An essay in the philosophy of language. Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar