Has the Problem of Incompleteness Rested on a Mistake?

Buchanan, Ray; Ostertag, Gary

doi:10.1093/mind/fzi889

Cited by 19 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…There are really four problems here. The first is the problem of whether the content of utterances like this is determinate (Wettstein 1981; Schiffer 1995; Neale 2004; Buchanan and Ostertag 2005). Is it the case, for example, that Neale meant ‘Everyone who attended my dinner party was sick’ as opposed to ‘Everyone who dined in my dining room was sick’?…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Argument From Binding*

Elbourne

2008

Philosophical Perspectives

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Argument From Binding*

Elbourne

2008

Philosophical Perspectives

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…35 That quantifier domain restriction is knee-deep in indeterminacy has long been noticed. See, for instance, Wettstein (1981), Blackburn (1988), Schiffer (1995), and Buchanan and Ostertag (2005). respect. 36 The scope of linguistic theory might be more circumscribed than usually thought.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Impossible interpretations, impossible demands

Pupa

2015

Linguist and Philos

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

While there has been much ado about the innumerable ways a speaker can alter the reach of her quantifier phrases, little fuss has been made over the fact that some forms of alteration are, as it were, impossible to pull off. These impossible interpretations cast a shadow over both syntactic and free enrichment approaches to the phenomenon of quantifier domain restriction. Indeed, I argue that these impossible interpretations help to undermine the presupposition that domain restriction is amenable to a uniform theoretical account.

show abstract

“…Incompleteness problems admit of other patch-ups as well. See, for instance, Buchanan and Ostertag (2005). 'Reformed Russellianism'.…”

Section: Reformed Russellianismmentioning

confidence: 99%

On the Russellian Reformation

Pupa

2008

Philos Stud

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recently, an orthodox Russellian tenet has come under fire from within. In particular, some Russellians now argue that definite descriptions don't semantically encode uniqueness. Instead, Reformed Russellians, as I call them, hold that definite descriptions are truth-theoretically identical to indefinite ones. On this approach, a definite description's uniqueness reading becomes a matter of pragmatics, not semantics. These reforms, we're told, provide both empirical and methodological benefits over and above the prevailing orthodoxy. As I argue, however, the Russellian Reformation contains serious flaws. Indeed, it is Orthodox Russellianism that remains a superior choice, both empirically and conceptually.

show abstract

Has the Problem of Incompleteness Rested on a Mistake?

Cited by 19 publications

References 15 publications

The Argument From Binding*

The Argument From Binding*

Impossible interpretations, impossible demands

On the Russellian Reformation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About