Descriptions and logical form

A Companion to Philosophical Logic

Volumn , Issue , 2007, Pages 177-193

  Ostertag, Gary ^a,b  

^a NEW YORK UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b NASSAU COMMUNITY COLLEGE   (United States)

Author keywords

Logical form; Predication; Predicative descriptions; Problem of incompleteness; Restricted quantification

Indexed keywords

EID: 61149090196     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1002/9780470996751.ch13     Document Type: Chapter

References (30)

1. Bach, Kent (1988) Thought and Reference. New York: Oxford University Press.
2. Evans, Gareth (1982) The Varieties of Reference. New York: Oxford University Press.
3. Fiengo, Robert and May, Robert (1996) Indices and Identity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
4. Graff, Delia (2001) Descriptions as Predicates. Philosophical Studies, 102, 1-42.
5. Heim, Irene and Kratzer, Angelica (1997) Semantics in Generative Grammar. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
6. Higginbotham, James (1987) Indefiniteness and predication. In E. Reuland and A. ter Meulen (eds.), The Representation of (In)Definiteness (pp. 43-70). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
7. Higginbotham, James (1993) Grammatical form and logical form. In James Tomberlin (ed.), Philosophical Perspectives, (Vol 7): Language and Logic. Atascadero, CA: Ridgeview.
8. Larson, Richard and Segal, Gabriel (1995) Knowledge of Meaning. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
9. Loar, Brian (1976) The semantics of singular terms. Philosophical Studies, 30, 353-77.
10. Mates, Benson (1973) Descriptions and reference. Foundations of Language, 10, 409-18.
11. Moore, G. E. (1944) The theory of descriptions. In Paul Arthur Schilpp (ed.), The Philosophy of Bertrand Russell (pp. 177-225). Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.
12. Neale, Stephen (1990) Descriptions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
13. Neale, Stephen (1995) The philosophical significance of Gödel's slingshot. Mind, 104, 761-825.
14. Ostertag, Gary (ed.) (1998) Definite Descriptions: A Reader. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
15. Reimer, Marga (1992) Incomplete descriptions. Erkenntnis 37, 347-63.
16. Russell, Bertrand (1905) On denoting. Mind, 14, 479-93. Reprinted in Ostertag (1998) pp. 35-49.
17. Russell, Bertrand (1919) Descriptions. In Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy. London: George Allen & Unwin. Reprinted in Ostertag (1998) pp. 67-76. Page references are to reprint.
18. Russell, Bertrand (1944) Reply to criticisms. In P. A. Schilpp (ed.), The Philosophy of Bertrand Russell. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.
19. Schiffer, Stephen (1995) Descriptions, indexicals, and belief reports: some dilemmas (but not the ones you expect). Mind, 104, 107-31. Reprinted in Ostertag (1998) pp. 369-95. Page references are to reprint.
20. Stanley, Jason and Szabó Zoltán Gendler (2000) On Quantifier Domain Restriction. Mind and Language, 15, 219-61.
21. Stanley, Jason and Williamson, Timothy (1995) Quantifiers and context dependence. Analysis, 55, 291-5.
22. Strawson, P. F. (1950) On referring. Mind, 54, 320-44. Reprinted in Ostertag (1998).
23. Whitehead, A. N. and Russell, Bertrand (1925-7) Principia Mathematica, vol. I, 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Excerpted in Ostertag (1998) pp. 51-65. Page references are to reprint.
24. Bach, Kent (1994) Ramachandran vs. Russell. Analysis, 54.3, 183-6.
25. Barwise, Jon and Cooper, Robin (1981) Generalized quantifiers and natural language. Linguistics and Philosophy, 4, 159-219.
26. Bezuidenhout, Anne (1997) Pragmatics, semantic underdetermination, and the referential/attributive distinction. Mind, 106, 375-409.
27. Burge, Tyler (1974) Truth and singular terms. Journal of Philosophy, 8, 309-25. Reprinted in Karel Lambert (ed.), Philosophical Applications of Free Logic. New York: Oxford University Press, 1991, 189-204.
28. Chomsky, Noam (1975) Questions of form and interpretation. Linguistic Analysis, 1, 75-109.
29. Donnellan, Keith (1966) Reference and definite descriptions. Philosophical Review, 75, 281-304. Reprinted in Ostertag (1998).
30. Ganeri, Jonardon (1995) Contextually incomplete descriptions - a new counterexample to Russell? Analysis, 55.4, 287-90.