Pragmatic ambiguity and Kripke’s dialogue against Donnellan
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.25247/P1982-999X.2019.v19n1.p103-134Keywords:
Assertion. Charity Principle. Definite Descriptions. Reference. Speech Acts.Abstract
In this paper I discuss Donnellan’s claim of the pragmatic ambiguity of the distinction between referential and attributive uses of definite des-criptions. The literature on the topic is huge and full of alternative analysis. I will restrict myself to a very classical topos: the challenge posed by Kripke to Donnellan’s distinction with the case of a dialogue on an attempt to update a misdescription. I claim that to treat the problem of the referential use of definite descriptions we need not only to take into account the context of utterance, but also the cognitive context with its epistemic restrictions and the possible different contexts of reception of the same utterance. I try to show different aspects of what can be called “pragmatic ambiguity”, which seem not correctly considered by Kripke, and connect them to the basic tenets of Grice Cooperative principle.
Downloads
References
Bach K. 2007, “Referentially used Descriptions: a Reply to Devitt”, European Journal of Analytic Philosophy, 3/2: 33-48.
Benzi M.; Penco C. “Defeasible Arguments and Context Dependence” in Paradigmi, 36/3: 561-577
Bezuidenhout M. and Reimer M. 2004 (eds.), Descriptions and Beyond, Oxford, Oxford U.P.
Brandom R., 1994, Making it Explicit, Haervard, Harvard University Press,
Buchanan R., Ostertag G. 2005, “Has the Problem of Incompletness Rested on a Mistake?”, Mind, vol.114, 456 (889-913).
Capuano A. 2016, “A New Account of the Referential/Attributive Distinction and its Semantic Nature”, in Bianchi A., Morato V., and Spolaore G., eds., The Importance of Being Called Ernesto. Reference, Truth, and Logical Form, Padova: University Press.
Devitt, M., 2004, “The case for referential descriptions”, in Bezuidenhout M. and Reimer M.: 280-305.
Donnellan K. 1966, “Reference and Definite Descriptions”, Philosophical Review, 75 (261-230).
Kaplan D. 2005, “Reading ‘On Denoting’ on its centenary”, Mind, 114/456: 933-1003.
Korta K. and Perry J. 2011, Critical Pragmatics: An inquiry into Reference and Communication, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kripke S. 1975, “Speaker's Reference and Semantic Reference”, in French P.A., Uehling T.E., Wettstein H.K. (eds.), Contemporary Perspectives in the Philosophy of Language, Univ. of Minnesota Press.
Kripke S. 2005, “Russell's notion of Scope”, Mind, vol.114, 456 (1005-1037).
Linsky L. 1963, “Reference and Referents”, in Caton C. (ed.), Philosophy and Ordinary Language, Urbana.
Liston M. 2007 (ed.) European Journal of Analytic Philosophy, issue on “Descriptions, their content, uses, and historical significance”, 3/2
Neale S. 2004, “This, That, and the Other”, in Bezuidenhout M. and Reimer M.: 68-182.
Neale S. 2005 “A century Later”, introduction to Mind, 114/456: 809–871
Neale S. 2006, "Descriptions", in M. Devitt - R. Hanley (eds), The Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of Language.
Neale S. 2016, “Silent Refernce”, in G. Ostertag, (ed.) Meanings and Other Things: Essays in Honor of Stephen Schiffer. Oxford Univ Pres, p. 229-344.
Penco C. 2010, “Essentially Incomplete Descriptions”, European Journal of Analytic Philosophy, 6: 47.66.
Penco C. 2017, “Donnellan’s misdescriptions and Loose Talk”, in Maria Ponte & Kepa Korta editors, Reference and Representation in Language and Thought, Oxford U.P.
Predelli S. Schiffer S. 1995 “Descriptions, Indexicals and Belief Reports”, Mind, 104 (107-131).
Soames S. 2005 “Why Incomplete Definite Descriptions do not Defeat Russell’s Theory of Descriptions”, in Teorema, Vol. XXIV/3: 7-30
Stalnaker R. 1970, “Pragmatics”, in Synthese 22: 272-289.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
You are free to:
- Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format for any purpose, even commercially.
- Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
- The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.
Under the following terms:
- Attribution — You must give appropriate credit , provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made . You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
- No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
Notices:
You do not have to comply with the license for elements of the material in the public domain or where your use is permitted by an applicable exception or limitation .
No warranties are given. The license may not give you all of the permissions necessary for your intended use. For example, other rights such as publicity, privacy, or moral rights may limit how you use the material.
