Descriptions, ambiguity, and representationalist theories of interpretation

<p>Theories of descriptions tend to involve commitments about the ambiguity of descriptions. For example, sentences containing descriptions are widely taken to be ambiguous between <i>de re</i>, <i>de dicto</i>, and intermediate interpretations and are sometimes though...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Koralus, P
Format: Journal article
Published: Springer Verlag 2011
_version_ 1797097523141148672
author Koralus, P
author_facet Koralus, P
author_sort Koralus, P
collection OXFORD
description <p>Theories of descriptions tend to involve commitments about the ambiguity of descriptions. For example, sentences containing descriptions are widely taken to be ambiguous between <i>de re</i>, <i>de dicto</i>, and intermediate interpretations and are sometimes thought to be ambiguous between the former and directly referential interpretations. I provide arguments to suggest that none of these interpretations are due to ambiguities (or indexicality). On the other hand, I argue that descriptions <i>are</i> ambiguous between the above family of interpretations and what may be called 'institutional' as well as generic interpretations. My arguments suggest that an adequate theory of descriptions may require considerable rethinking. Most contemporary theories of descriptions appear to be committed to one or more claims about the ambiguity of descriptions that I reject in this paper. I suggest that my observations provide a reason to renew efforts to develop a theory of descriptions within a representationalist theory of interpretation.</p>
first_indexed 2024-03-07T04:56:45Z
format Journal article
id oxford-uuid:d6dc8211-5588-4c55-b794-786b62a787ad
institution University of Oxford
last_indexed 2024-03-07T04:56:45Z
publishDate 2011
publisher Springer Verlag
record_format dspace
spelling oxford-uuid:d6dc8211-5588-4c55-b794-786b62a787ad2022-03-27T08:36:44ZDescriptions, ambiguity, and representationalist theories of interpretationJournal articlehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_dcae04bcuuid:d6dc8211-5588-4c55-b794-786b62a787adSymplectic Elements at OxfordSpringer Verlag2011Koralus, P <p>Theories of descriptions tend to involve commitments about the ambiguity of descriptions. For example, sentences containing descriptions are widely taken to be ambiguous between <i>de re</i>, <i>de dicto</i>, and intermediate interpretations and are sometimes thought to be ambiguous between the former and directly referential interpretations. I provide arguments to suggest that none of these interpretations are due to ambiguities (or indexicality). On the other hand, I argue that descriptions <i>are</i> ambiguous between the above family of interpretations and what may be called 'institutional' as well as generic interpretations. My arguments suggest that an adequate theory of descriptions may require considerable rethinking. Most contemporary theories of descriptions appear to be committed to one or more claims about the ambiguity of descriptions that I reject in this paper. I suggest that my observations provide a reason to renew efforts to develop a theory of descriptions within a representationalist theory of interpretation.</p>
spellingShingle Koralus, P
Descriptions, ambiguity, and representationalist theories of interpretation
title Descriptions, ambiguity, and representationalist theories of interpretation
title_full Descriptions, ambiguity, and representationalist theories of interpretation
title_fullStr Descriptions, ambiguity, and representationalist theories of interpretation
title_full_unstemmed Descriptions, ambiguity, and representationalist theories of interpretation
title_short Descriptions, ambiguity, and representationalist theories of interpretation
title_sort descriptions ambiguity and representationalist theories of interpretation
work_keys_str_mv AT koralusp descriptionsambiguityandrepresentationalisttheoriesofinterpretation