Russell's analysis of definite descriptions as quantifiers (On Denoting, 1905) entails that scope interactions with negation are logically real distinctions with different truth conditions, not mere pragmatic resolutions of a single underspecified content.
?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.
Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.
Phrases of the form 'the so-and-so', designed to pick out the unique object, if any, which satisfies the condition following 'the'
pragmatic resolutions(what the statement says these distinctions are NOT)
Ways that context and everyday communication help us figure out what someone probably means, even if the words alone are ambiguous.
quantifiers(the logical form Russell said descriptions should take)
Words like 'all,' 'some,' and 'none' that express how many things we're talking about; Russell argued that phrases like 'the king of France' should be understood using these quantity-words rather than as simple names.
scope interactions with negation(the logical phenomenon being discussed)
The difference between 'not all X are Y' versus 'all X are not Y'—where the word 'not' can apply to different parts of a sentence and completely change the meaning.
underspecified content(what pragmatic approaches treat ambiguous sentences as having)
A message that doesn't contain enough information on its own to have one clear meaning, so we rely on context to fill in the gaps.