Ideas from 'Reference and Definite Descriptions' by Keith Donnellan [1966], by Theme Structure

[found in 'Naming, Necessity, and Natural Kinds' (ed/tr Schwartz,Stephen P.) [Cornell 1979,0-8014-9861-9]].

green numbers give full details    |     back to texts     |     unexpand these ideas


5. Theory of Logic / F. Referring in Logic / 2. Descriptions / a. Descriptions
Russell only uses descriptions attributively, and Strawson only referentially
                        Full Idea: Donnellan objects that Russell's theory of definite descriptions overlooks the referential use (Russell writes as if all descriptions are used attributively), and that Strawson assumes they are all used referentially, to draw attention to things.
                        From: report of Keith Donnellan (Reference and Definite Descriptions [1966]) by William Lycan - Philosophy of Language Ch.1
                        A reaction: This seems like a nice little success for analytical philosophy - clarifying a horrible mess by making a simple distinction that leaves everyone happy.
5. Theory of Logic / F. Referring in Logic / 2. Descriptions / b. Definite descriptions
A definite description can have a non-referential use
                        Full Idea: A definite description may also be used non-referentially, even as it occurs in one and the same sentence.
                        From: Keith Donnellan (Reference and Definite Descriptions [1966], §I)
                        A reaction: Donnellan says we have to know about the particular occasion on which the description is used, as in itself it will not achieve reference. "Will the last person out switch off the lights" achieves its reference at the end of each day.
Definite descriptions are 'attributive' if they say something about x, and 'referential' if they pick x out
                        Full Idea: A speaker who uses a definite description 'attributively' in an assertion states something about whoever or whatever is the so-and-so; a speaker who uses it 'referentially' enables his audience to pick out whom or what he is talking about.
                        From: Keith Donnellan (Reference and Definite Descriptions [1966], §III)
                        A reaction: "Smith's murderer is insane" exemplifies the first use before he is caught, and the second use afterwards. The gist is that reference is not a purely linguistic activity, but is closer to pointing at something. This seems right.
'The x is F' only presumes that x exists; it does not actually entail the existence
                        Full Idea: For Russell there is a logical entailment: 'the x is F' entails 'there exists one and only one x'. Whether or not this is true of the attributive use of definite descriptions, it does not seem true of the referential use. The existence is a presumption.
                        From: Keith Donnellan (Reference and Definite Descriptions [1966], §VI)
                        A reaction: Can we say 'x does not exist, but x is F'? Strictly, that sounds to me more like a contradiction than a surprising rejection of a presumption. However, 'Father Xmas does not exist, but he has a red coat'.
19. Language / B. Reference / 4. Descriptive Reference / b. Reference by description
A definite description 'the F' is referential if the speaker could thereby be referring to something not-F
                        Full Idea: Donnellan argued that we could recognize a referential use of a definite description 'the F' by the fact that the speaker could thereby refer to something which is not F.
                        From: report of Keith Donnellan (Reference and Definite Descriptions [1966]) by Mark Sainsbury - The Essence of Reference 18.5
                        A reaction: If the expression employed achieved reference whether the speaker wanted it to or not, it would certainly look as if the expression was inherently referring.
Donnellan is unclear whether the referential-attributive distinction is semantic or pragmatic
                        Full Idea: Donnellan seems to be unsure whether to regard his referential-attributive distinction as indicating a semantic ambiguity or merely a pragmatic one.
                        From: comment on Keith Donnellan (Reference and Definite Descriptions [1966]) by Kent Bach - What Does It Take to Refer? 22.2 L1
                        A reaction: I vote for pragmatic. In a single brief conversation a definite description could start as attributive and end as referential, but it seems unlikely that its semantics changed in mid-paragraph.
A description can successfully refer, even if its application to the subject is not believed
                        Full Idea: If I think the king is a usurper, "Is the king in his counting house?" succeeds in referring to the right man, even though I do not believe that he fits the description.
                        From: Keith Donnellan (Reference and Definite Descriptions [1966], §IV)
                        A reaction: This seems undeniable. If I point at someone, I can refer successfully with almost any description. "Oy! Adolf! Get me a drink!" Reference is an essential aspect of language, and it is not entirely linguistic.
19. Language / B. Reference / 5. Speaker's Reference
Whether a definite description is referential or attributive depends on the speaker's intention
                        Full Idea: Whether or not a definite description is used referentially or attributively is a function of the speaker's intentions in a particular case.
                        From: Keith Donnellan (Reference and Definite Descriptions [1966], §VII)
                        A reaction: Donnellan's distinction, and his claim here, seem to me right. However words on a notice could refer on one occasion, and just describe on another. "Anyone entering this cage is mad".