Ghosts, Murderers, and the Semantics of Descriptions
Version of Record online: 6 DEC 2011
© 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Volume 47, Issue 3, pages 496–533, September 2013
How to Cite
Schoubye, A. J. (2013), Ghosts, Murderers, and the Semantics of Descriptions. Noûs, 47: 496–533. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0068.2011.00836.x
- Issue online: 10 JUL 2013
- Version of Record online: 6 DEC 2011
It is widely agreed that sentences containing a non-denoting description embedded in the scope of a propositional attitude verb have true de dicto interpretations, and Russell's (1905) analysis of definite descriptions is often praised for its simple analysis of such cases, cf. e.g. Neale (1990). However, several people, incl. Elbourne (2005, 2009), Heim (1991), and Kripke (2005), have contested this by arguing that Russell's analysis yields incorrect predictions in non-doxastic attitude contexts. Heim and Elbourne have subsequently argued that once certain facts about presupposition projection are fully appreciated, the Frege/Strawson analysis of definite descriptions has an explanatory advantage. In this paper, I argue that both Russell's analysis and the Frege/Strawson analysis face a serious problem when it comes to the interaction of attitude verbs and definite descriptions. I argue that the problem observed by Elbourne, Heim, and Kripke is much more general than standardly assumed and that a solution requires a revision of the semantics of definite and indefinite descriptions. I outline the conditions that are required to solve the problem and present an analysis couched in dynamic semantics which can provide a solution. I conclude by discussing some further issues related to propositional attitude verbs that complicate a fully general solution to the problem.