indefinite descriptions are referring terms
DESCRIPTION
Indefinite Descriptions are Referring Terms. Orthodox Semantics: The Great Divide Noun phrases that are referring terms. Noun phrases that are quantifiers. What is the status of indefinite descriptions?. A: Indefinites are Quantifiers - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Indefinite Descriptions are Referring Terms](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022013011/5681341f550346895d9b0bb4/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Indefinite Descriptions are Referring Terms
![Page 2: Indefinite Descriptions are Referring Terms](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022013011/5681341f550346895d9b0bb4/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Orthodox Semantics: The Great Divide
Noun phrases that are referring terms.Noun phrases that are quantifiers.
What is the status of indefinite descriptions?
![Page 3: Indefinite Descriptions are Referring Terms](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022013011/5681341f550346895d9b0bb4/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
A: Indefinites are QuantifiersB: Indefinites are sometimes
Quantifiers, sometimes Referring Terms.
C: Indefinites are always Referring Terms.
Jane caught a hippo. It was very fat. Jane did not catch a hippo.If Jane caught a hippo, it was small.
![Page 4: Indefinite Descriptions are Referring Terms](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022013011/5681341f550346895d9b0bb4/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
What makes an expression a referring term?
![Page 5: Indefinite Descriptions are Referring Terms](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022013011/5681341f550346895d9b0bb4/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Theory1. Denoting:E is a referring term iff E denotes an object.
Theory 2: Intending to Denote:E is a referring term iff E is used with the
intention of denoting an object.
Theory 3. The Denoting Kind:E is a referring term iff E belongs to a noun-
phrase class some members of which denote objects.
![Page 6: Indefinite Descriptions are Referring Terms](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022013011/5681341f550346895d9b0bb4/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Theory 4. Advertising Theory
E is a referring term iff E is used to advertise an intention to denote something.
![Page 7: Indefinite Descriptions are Referring Terms](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022013011/5681341f550346895d9b0bb4/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Denotative Technique:
DT[Smith]: Smith is a device that we use to denote something exploiting the fact that certain tokens of the phonological-type Smith already denote.
![Page 8: Indefinite Descriptions are Referring Terms](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022013011/5681341f550346895d9b0bb4/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
What constitutes the fact that in uttering Smith U is tokening a name?
The fact that U is intentionally engaging in a behaviour characteristic of someone who has an intention to denote an object exploiting the denotative technique DT[Smith].
![Page 9: Indefinite Descriptions are Referring Terms](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022013011/5681341f550346895d9b0bb4/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Advertising an Intention to Denote:
In uttering a term T, U advertises an intention to denote an object iff
U utters T and intentionally engages in, or is disposed to engage in, behaviours characteristic of someone who has an intention to denote an object using denotative techniques of a certain kind, e.g, nomic, anaphoric, demonstrative, indexical, etc.
![Page 10: Indefinite Descriptions are Referring Terms](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022013011/5681341f550346895d9b0bb4/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Proto-referring
A proto-referring act is an act in which U utters an expression with the syntax of a noun phrase and advertises an intention to denote using some denotative techniques.
![Page 11: Indefinite Descriptions are Referring Terms](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022013011/5681341f550346895d9b0bb4/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Proto-referring, Pretence, and Seriousness.
Proto-referring--advertising an intention to denote an object--is neutral between pretence and seriousness.
![Page 12: Indefinite Descriptions are Referring Terms](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022013011/5681341f550346895d9b0bb4/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Smith: Homer wrote The Odyssey.
Jones: Homer did not. He never existed.
Smith--serious
Jones--pretence.
Both: proto-refer.
![Page 13: Indefinite Descriptions are Referring Terms](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022013011/5681341f550346895d9b0bb4/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Theory 4 Restated: Proto-act definition of a referring term:
E is a referring term iff E is used in a proto-referring act.
Covers: names, anaphors, indexicals.
![Page 14: Indefinite Descriptions are Referring Terms](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022013011/5681341f550346895d9b0bb4/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Are indefinites referring terms?
In using a hippo, does U employ a hippo in a proto-referring act?
Does U utter a hippo advertising an intention to denote something?
Yes!
![Page 15: Indefinite Descriptions are Referring Terms](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022013011/5681341f550346895d9b0bb4/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Denotative Technique?Plausible conjecture:
DT[an F]: An indefinite an F is a term that can be use to pick out an entity O through the fact that O uniquely satisfying some contextually given descriptive content {..F..}.
![Page 16: Indefinite Descriptions are Referring Terms](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022013011/5681341f550346895d9b0bb4/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
U utters a hippo as an indefinite iff:
U utters a hippo intentionally engaging in a behaviour characteristic of someone who has an intention to denote an object exploiting the denotative technique DT[a hippo].
![Page 17: Indefinite Descriptions are Referring Terms](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022013011/5681341f550346895d9b0bb4/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Indefinite Proto-referring act:
In uttering a hippo as an indefinite:U advertises an intention to denote an
object x: x uniquely satisfies {..Hippo..}.
![Page 18: Indefinite Descriptions are Referring Terms](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022013011/5681341f550346895d9b0bb4/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Case One:Jane caught a hippo.
U advertises an intention to denote an object x: x uniquely satisfies {..Hippo..}.
Sentential augmentation of descriptive content:U advertises an intention to denote an entity x:x uniquely satisfies {..Hippo, Caught by Jane..}.
![Page 19: Indefinite Descriptions are Referring Terms](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022013011/5681341f550346895d9b0bb4/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Jane caught a hippo. It was very fat.
Anaphoric Link: U utters it advertising an intention to denote whatever was denoted by a hippo.
U has the anaphoric intention.
It--the hippo that Jane caught.
![Page 20: Indefinite Descriptions are Referring Terms](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022013011/5681341f550346895d9b0bb4/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Objection I: Singular referring terms carry uniqueness implications of some kind. But indefinites do not.
Claim: Jane caught a hippo =Jane caught at least one hippo.
![Page 21: Indefinite Descriptions are Referring Terms](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022013011/5681341f550346895d9b0bb4/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Reply I: Anaphoric Relations
Jane caught at least one hippo. It or they are outside.
Jane caught a hippo. *It or they are outside.
![Page 22: Indefinite Descriptions are Referring Terms](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022013011/5681341f550346895d9b0bb4/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Reply II: Definite Descriptions
Jane saw a hippo yesterday. The hippo Jane saw yesterday was black.
Jane saw at least one hippo yesterday. *The hippo Jane saw yesterday was black.
![Page 23: Indefinite Descriptions are Referring Terms](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022013011/5681341f550346895d9b0bb4/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Objection II: This account collapses the distinction between definite and indefinite.
Reply:Indefinites have sententially determinable
descriptive content.Definites have pre-sententially determined
descriptive content.
![Page 24: Indefinite Descriptions are Referring Terms](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022013011/5681341f550346895d9b0bb4/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
Pre-sentential Determination: the descriptive resources associated with the hippo must be secured independently of the main-clause predication in the sentence. So descriptive uniqueness needs to be established prior to processing of the whole assertion:
![Page 25: Indefinite Descriptions are Referring Terms](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022013011/5681341f550346895d9b0bb4/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
The F and an F are used in the same basic proto-act, but the F has the added meaning that its descriptive content is established prior to its use in a sentence.
Jane caught a hippo.Jane caught the hippo.
Both work by descriptive uniqueness.
![Page 26: Indefinite Descriptions are Referring Terms](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022013011/5681341f550346895d9b0bb4/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
Objection:Q: Did you see a hippo today?A: Yes, I saw a hippo. Indeed, I saw
many.
(i) A-speaker has some particular hippo in mind.
(ii) Yes-answer does not imply that A affirms ‘I saw a hippo’.
![Page 27: Indefinite Descriptions are Referring Terms](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022013011/5681341f550346895d9b0bb4/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
Bivalence Failure: With failure of uniqueness there is failure of bivalence:
There is a man in China
Cannot say true, false, not true, not false, etc.
There is the man in China.
![Page 28: Indefinite Descriptions are Referring Terms](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022013011/5681341f550346895d9b0bb4/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
Case 2: Jane did not catch a hippo.
U advertises an intention to denote an object x: x uniquely satisfies {..Hippo..}.
1. U lacks the intention she advertises.2. No sentential augmentation of content.
![Page 29: Indefinite Descriptions are Referring Terms](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022013011/5681341f550346895d9b0bb4/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
Non-denoting name comparison
Pegasus does not exist.Jane did not catch a hippo.
In both cases terms fail to denote, and U lacks a denotative intention. But U advertises an intention to denote.
In both cases U employs a referring term.
![Page 30: Indefinite Descriptions are Referring Terms](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022013011/5681341f550346895d9b0bb4/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
Objection: There is a difference in determinacy between Pegasus and a hippo:
Pegasus does not exist.Jane did not catch a hippo.
Pegasus does not exist. He is fictional.Jane did not catch a hippo. *It was….
![Page 31: Indefinite Descriptions are Referring Terms](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022013011/5681341f550346895d9b0bb4/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
Jane did not catch a hippo. *Jane did not see it.
‘It’ inherits a hippo’s content, so must be indeterminate. But ‘it’ must be determinate for the second sentence to be acceptable.
Compare:Jane did not catch a hippo. *Jane did not
see the hippo.
![Page 32: Indefinite Descriptions are Referring Terms](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022013011/5681341f550346895d9b0bb4/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
Case 3: Predicative UsesHerman is a hippo.Herman is identical to a hippo.
1. U has the intention.2. Augmentation: U advertises and has an
intention to denote an object x: x uniquely satisfies {..Hippo, Identical to Herman...}.
Herman is the hippo.
![Page 33: Indefinite Descriptions are Referring Terms](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022013011/5681341f550346895d9b0bb4/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
Case 4: Conditional AntecedentsIf Jane caught a hippo, she sold it.
U advertises an intention to denote an object x: x uniquely satisfies {..Hippo..}.
1. U lacks the intention.2. Sentential augmentation: U advertises an
intention to denote an object x: x uniquely satisfies {..Hippo, Caught by Jane..}.
![Page 34: Indefinite Descriptions are Referring Terms](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022013011/5681341f550346895d9b0bb4/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
If Jane caught a hippo, she sold it.
Anaphoric Link: U utter it advertising an intention to denote whatever was denoted by a hippo.
U lacks this anaphoric intention.
If Jane caught a hippo, she sold the hippo that she caught.
![Page 35: Indefinite Descriptions are Referring Terms](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022013011/5681341f550346895d9b0bb4/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
Objection: Uniqueness and antecedents
(*) If Jane caught a hippo, she sold it.
(*) implies that where Jane caught 50 hippos she sold each one.
Problem: I cannot assert ‘Jane caught a hippo’, where she catches 50--uniqueness implication.
![Page 36: Indefinite Descriptions are Referring Terms](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022013011/5681341f550346895d9b0bb4/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
The implicit additional descriptive content of a hippo in (*) is undecided:
(*) If Jane caught a hippo, she sold it.
Indeterminacy. Implicit Generality. Any--an indefinite signalling substitutional
indifference.
Corresponding assertion: Jane caught a hippo (that is F)
![Page 37: Indefinite Descriptions are Referring Terms](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022013011/5681341f550346895d9b0bb4/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
Commitment of: If Jane caught a hippo, she sold it.
Is:
For any assertion of the form A( Jane caught a hippo (that is F))one must assert: A(Jane sold it)
![Page 38: Indefinite Descriptions are Referring Terms](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022013011/5681341f550346895d9b0bb4/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
Case 5: Generic UsesA hippo is usually placid.
U advertises an intention to denote an object x: x uniquely satisfies {..Hippo..}.
1. U lacks the intention.2. No sentential augmentation of content.
![Page 39: Indefinite Descriptions are Referring Terms](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022013011/5681341f550346895d9b0bb4/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
Generic Interpretation of Indefinites
The proto-act performed with a hippo is interpreted as a template for members of a class of acts, whose members are proto-acts R(T)pro, with the descriptive content {…Hippo…}.
Commitment: most of the instances of T is fat are true.
![Page 40: Indefinite Descriptions are Referring Terms](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022013011/5681341f550346895d9b0bb4/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
Conclusion:
A. Indefinites are referring terms; they are always uttered as components of proto-referring acts.
B. They differ from definites only in this respect: they have sententially determinable referential content.
![Page 41: Indefinite Descriptions are Referring Terms](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022013011/5681341f550346895d9b0bb4/html5/thumbnails/41.jpg)
C. Indefinites qua referring terms are often used in contexts in which they do not denote, and speakers know they don’t, and it is required that they don’t.
D. Question: What is the extent of the
domain of referring terms?
![Page 42: Indefinite Descriptions are Referring Terms](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022013011/5681341f550346895d9b0bb4/html5/thumbnails/42.jpg)
Question: What uniform account can be given of the semantic contribution of an indefinite description?
Bold conjecture: A pragmatic, speech-act theory of what constitutes a referring term is the counterpart of a pragmatic speech-act semantics.
![Page 43: Indefinite Descriptions are Referring Terms](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022013011/5681341f550346895d9b0bb4/html5/thumbnails/43.jpg)
The Speech-Act Theoretic Approach to Semantics
Semantic contents are speech-act types.
The semantic contribution of a referring term is the speech-act type associated with it: the proto-referring-act type.
Renewing Meaning (Oxford 2004)
![Page 44: Indefinite Descriptions are Referring Terms](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022013011/5681341f550346895d9b0bb4/html5/thumbnails/44.jpg)
Meaning of a Name:
Character of Smith:
Proto-referring act type in which U advertises an intention to denote something already denoted by some token of Smith.
![Page 45: Indefinite Descriptions are Referring Terms](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022013011/5681341f550346895d9b0bb4/html5/thumbnails/45.jpg)
Semantic Interpretation of Smith:
The proto-referring act-type all of whose tokens are nodes on a certain referential true.
![Page 46: Indefinite Descriptions are Referring Terms](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022013011/5681341f550346895d9b0bb4/html5/thumbnails/46.jpg)
B
B
T
T
T
S
BB
B
TT T
BB
![Page 47: Indefinite Descriptions are Referring Terms](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022013011/5681341f550346895d9b0bb4/html5/thumbnails/47.jpg)
The Meaning of an Indefinite:
Character of a hippo:
The proto-referring-act type with descriptive content {…Hippo…} which has sententially augmentable content.
![Page 48: Indefinite Descriptions are Referring Terms](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022013011/5681341f550346895d9b0bb4/html5/thumbnails/48.jpg)
The semantic interpretation of a token of a hippo is a proto-referring act type, which depending on the context will be:
(i) the character itself; (ii) a descriptively enriched character;(iii)a (sententially determined) descriptive
proto-referring-act type. (iv) the character modified by a mode. (v) a type defined by a referential tree.
![Page 49: Indefinite Descriptions are Referring Terms](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022013011/5681341f550346895d9b0bb4/html5/thumbnails/49.jpg)
Referential/Attributive use and pronominal contradiction:
Smith: A guy fell in front of a train this morning.
Jones: He didn’t fall. He was pushed.
![Page 50: Indefinite Descriptions are Referring Terms](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022013011/5681341f550346895d9b0bb4/html5/thumbnails/50.jpg)
Referential uses of a guy:
(a) anaphoric: U advertises an intention to denote whatever was picked out in some earlier NP, or a demonstrative.
(b) Anaphoric content trumps descriptive content.
![Page 51: Indefinite Descriptions are Referring Terms](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022013011/5681341f550346895d9b0bb4/html5/thumbnails/51.jpg)
(c) Anaphoric connections are secured by advertising intentions to denote whatever is denoted by the antecedent.
A guy fell….. He didn’t fall.
Advertising an intention to denote by He what is denoted by a guy.
![Page 52: Indefinite Descriptions are Referring Terms](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022013011/5681341f550346895d9b0bb4/html5/thumbnails/52.jpg)
The Meaning of a Definite:
Character of the hippo:
The proto-referring-act type with descriptive content {…Hippo…} which has presententially determined content.
![Page 53: Indefinite Descriptions are Referring Terms](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022013011/5681341f550346895d9b0bb4/html5/thumbnails/53.jpg)
The semantic interpretation of a token of the hippo:
A proto-referring act type, which depending on the context will be:
(i) a (pre-sententially determined) descriptive proto-referring-act type.
(ii) the character modified by a mode. (iii) a type defined by a referential tree.
![Page 54: Indefinite Descriptions are Referring Terms](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022013011/5681341f550346895d9b0bb4/html5/thumbnails/54.jpg)
What are the Semantic Interpretations of Sentences?
The semantic interpretations of sentences are speech-acts (types)--that can have proto-referring-act types as parts.
The semantic interpretation of a declarative sentence is a proto-assertion.
![Page 55: Indefinite Descriptions are Referring Terms](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022013011/5681341f550346895d9b0bb4/html5/thumbnails/55.jpg)
What is assertion?
In asserting something with a sentence S, U uses S and defends a state of mind.
To defend a state of mind is to manifest a reason giving disposition for tokening a property .
![Page 56: Indefinite Descriptions are Referring Terms](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022013011/5681341f550346895d9b0bb4/html5/thumbnails/56.jpg)
What is state of mind-type or mental defended in assertion?
One Answer: belief that P
Asserting that P = to utter a sentence S that means that P intending to defend belief that P.
![Page 57: Indefinite Descriptions are Referring Terms](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022013011/5681341f550346895d9b0bb4/html5/thumbnails/57.jpg)
The Plurality of -properties:
Reports: Snowy is black ---
-property: intention to represent by S a complex of the form <Snowy, black>
![Page 58: Indefinite Descriptions are Referring Terms](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022013011/5681341f550346895d9b0bb4/html5/thumbnails/58.jpg)
Negations:Not-S -property: Rejecting -A(S).
T is not F-property: Rejecting the disposition to apply is
F to T.
![Page 59: Indefinite Descriptions are Referring Terms](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022013011/5681341f550346895d9b0bb4/html5/thumbnails/59.jpg)
Truth and Falsity
Truth AscriptionsThat S is true-property: commitment to -A(S).
Falsity Ascriptions That S is false: --- defend commitment to
rejecting -A(S).
![Page 60: Indefinite Descriptions are Referring Terms](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022013011/5681341f550346895d9b0bb4/html5/thumbnails/60.jpg)
What are the semantic interpretations of declarative sentences?
Uttering S advertising defence of a -property.
![Page 61: Indefinite Descriptions are Referring Terms](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022013011/5681341f550346895d9b0bb4/html5/thumbnails/61.jpg)
A compositional -property semantics?
No Frege/Geach problem
Proto-assertions can embed.
There are rules that specify what -properties are assigned sentences given their constituents and context.
![Page 62: Indefinite Descriptions are Referring Terms](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022013011/5681341f550346895d9b0bb4/html5/thumbnails/62.jpg)
Semantic Structure of a Simple Sentence
T is F = R(T)pro Pred(is F)
-property?
Depends on the form of the predicate.
![Page 63: Indefinite Descriptions are Referring Terms](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022013011/5681341f550346895d9b0bb4/html5/thumbnails/63.jpg)
Case One:
Jane caught a hippo.
-property: intending to represent a complex of the form <x caught y>, where x is denoted by Jane and y denoted by a hippo.
![Page 64: Indefinite Descriptions are Referring Terms](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022013011/5681341f550346895d9b0bb4/html5/thumbnails/64.jpg)
Case 2:
Jane did not catch a hippo.
-property: rejecting the application of Pred(caught a hippo)pro to R(Jane)pro.
![Page 65: Indefinite Descriptions are Referring Terms](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022013011/5681341f550346895d9b0bb4/html5/thumbnails/65.jpg)
Case 5:
A hippo is usually fat.
-property: being disposed to accept most of instances, T is fat, for R(T)pro that are instances of R(a hippo)pro.
![Page 66: Indefinite Descriptions are Referring Terms](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022013011/5681341f550346895d9b0bb4/html5/thumbnails/66.jpg)
Case 6:
A hippo was not fed.
-property: accepting the application of Pred(not fed)pro to R(a hippo)pro, where R(a hippo)pro has a topic interpretation.
![Page 67: Indefinite Descriptions are Referring Terms](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022013011/5681341f550346895d9b0bb4/html5/thumbnails/67.jpg)
Conclusions
….
![Page 68: Indefinite Descriptions are Referring Terms](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022013011/5681341f550346895d9b0bb4/html5/thumbnails/68.jpg)
![Page 69: Indefinite Descriptions are Referring Terms](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022013011/5681341f550346895d9b0bb4/html5/thumbnails/69.jpg)
Objection 1: The proto-referring theory is too weak; it captures a necessary but not sufficient condition for being a referring term.
Reply: It is doubtful that there is a refinement that excludes indefinites, and doubtful that it is of any semantic interest.
![Page 70: Indefinite Descriptions are Referring Terms](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022013011/5681341f550346895d9b0bb4/html5/thumbnails/70.jpg)
Objection (Uniqueness again)
a largest prime
A largest prime is very large.
There exists a largest prime.
![Page 71: Indefinite Descriptions are Referring Terms](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022013011/5681341f550346895d9b0bb4/html5/thumbnails/71.jpg)
Repertoire Rule:If U wants to denote an object exploiting
the fact that it uniquely satisfies some contextually given descriptive condition {..F..}, then she can utter an F, and, if the context is right, and her beliefs about {..F..} are right, she will achieve her goal.