Definite Description Phrase
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
A Definite Description Phrase is a referring expression that refers to entities that are identifiable
- AKA: Definite Description Expression.
- Context:
- It is a type of Definite Phrase (along with Proper Nouns).
- In English, it can take the form of "the X", where X a noun phrase or a singular common noun.
- It can range from (typically) being a Definite Noun Phrase to being a ...
- Example(s):
- “the tallest woman in the world”
- “the first person in space”, a Proper Definite Description Phrase.
- “the 42nd President of the United States of America”, a Proper Definite Description Phrase.
- “the person in space”, an Non-proper Definite Description Phrase.
- “the Senator from Ohio”, an Non-proper Definite Description Phrase.
- “the father of Ronald Reagan”.
- ??
- “the first person on Mars”, an Non-proper Definite Description Phrase.
- “the largest prime number"”, an Non-proper Definite Description Phrase.
- …
- Counter-Example(s):
- a Proper Noun.
- an Indefinite Description Phrase, such as: “a man called John”.
- “She is ambitious” (Bach, 2008)
- See: Phrase.
References
2012
- (Wikipedia, 2012) ⇒ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definite_description
- QUOTE: A definite description is a denoting phrase in the form of "the X" where X is a noun-phrase or a singular common noun. The definite description is proper if X applies to a unique individual or object. For example: “the first person in space” and "the 42nd President of the United States of America", are proper. The definite descriptions "the person in space" and "the Senator from Ohio" are improper because the noun phrase X applies to more than one thing, and the definite descriptions "the first man on Mars" and "the Senator from Washington D.C." are improper because X applies to nothing. Improper descriptions raise some difficult questions about the law of excluded middle, denotation, modality, and mental content.
2009
- http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/754957/philosophy-of-language/257828/Russells-theory-of-descriptions#ref=ref923917
- In his paper On Denoting (1905), the English philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872–1970) took the further step of bringing definite descriptions — noun phrases of the form the so and so, such as the present king of France — into the scope of Frege’s logic. The problem addressed by Russell was how to account for the meaningfulness of definite descriptions that do not refer to anything. Such descriptions are commonly used in formal mathematical reasoning, as in a proof by reductio ad absurdum that there is no greatest prime number. The proof consists of deriving a contradiction from the sentence Let x be the greatest prime number, which contains a description, the greatest prime number, that by hypothesis does not refer. If the description is treated as a Fregean singular term, however, then it is not clear what sense it could have, since sense, according to Frege, is the mode of presentation of a referent.
- http://www.geocities.com/n_arkw2/Dissertation/Diss.6.Desc.pdf
- Definite noun phrases (including proper nouns and definite descriptions) are used to refer to something or someone that the hearer is expected to be able to identify on hearing the noun phrase in the given context. If the referent has not been introduced to the hearer or to the discourse, the speaker should refer to the referent in his or her mind by an indefinite noun phrase such as “a man called John” or by a definite description which uniquely identifies the referent to the hearer (e.g., “the father of Ronald Reagan”--provided that the hearer knows whom “Ronald Reagan” denotes).
2008
- (Bach, 2008) ⇒ Kent Bach. (2008). “On Referring and Not Referring.” In: Reference: Interdisciplinary Perspectives." Jeanette K. Gundel and Nancy Hedberg, editors. Oxford University Press.
- QUOTE: It is rare to find a philosopher who includes indefinite descriptions among referring expressions, but some are liberal enough to include definite descriptions. Some reject definites but include demonstrative descriptions (complex demonstratives) on their list. Some balk at descriptions of any kind referring but have no qualms about proper names. Some have doubts about proper names referring, but readily include indexicals and simple demonstratives. Anyhow, I can’t recall anyone actually responding to Strawson’s argument. Instead, what I’ve observed is that philosophers slide down a verbal slippery slope. Suppose Madonna says, referring to Britney Spears, “She is ambitious.” <PL With this slippery slide in mind, from now on (except when discussing others’ views) instead of using ‘referring expression’ I’ll use the marginally better phrase ‘singular term’ for expressions that can be used to refer.
By ‘reference’ I will mean singular reference only (I will not be considering whether general terms refer and, if so, to what), and when I describe a use as nonreferential, I will not mean that reference fails but that there is no attempt to refer.
footnote: Although our topic is singular reference, there is a broad sense in which every expression refers (or at least every expression that has a semantic value that contributes to the propositional content of sentences in which it occurs) … In any case, the phrase ‘referring expression’ is ordinarily limited to any expression whose propositional contribution is its referent (if it has one)..
S5 Often the only way to refer to something is by using a definite description.
- QUOTE: It is rare to find a philosopher who includes indefinite descriptions among referring expressions, but some are liberal enough to include definite descriptions. Some reject definites but include demonstrative descriptions (complex demonstratives) on their list. Some balk at descriptions of any kind referring but have no qualms about proper names. Some have doubts about proper names referring, but readily include indexicals and simple demonstratives. Anyhow, I can’t recall anyone actually responding to Strawson’s argument. Instead, what I’ve observed is that philosophers slide down a verbal slippery slope. Suppose Madonna says, referring to Britney Spears, “She is ambitious.” <PL With this slippery slide in mind, from now on (except when discussing others’ views) instead of using ‘referring expression’ I’ll use the marginally better phrase ‘singular term’ for expressions that can be used to refer.
1995
- (Grosz et al, 1995) ⇒ Barbara J. Grosz, A. Joshi, and S. Weinstein. (1995). “Providing a Unified Account of Definite Noun Phrases in Discourse.” In: Proceedings of the 21st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics.
- QUOTE: Even a casual survey of the literature on definite descriptions and referring expressions reveals not only defects in the individual accounts provided by theorists (from several different disciplines), but also deep confusions about the roles that syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic factors play in accounting for these phenomena.
1991
- (Ardissono et al., 1991) ⇒ Liliana Ardissono, Leonardo Lesmo, Paolo Pogliano, Paolo Terenziani, (1991). “Interpretation of Definite Noun Phrases.” In: Proceedings of IJCAI 1991.
- QUOTE: The role of a definite noun phrase in a sentence is to identify an entity (or a group of entities) about which a predication is made. On the other hand, it seems that such a construct can be used to denote very different things, as shown by the following examples:
- 1) The triangle is the poligon with three sides
- 2) The bear hibernates in winter
- 3) The dog is eating in the garden
- 4) The murderer, whoever he is, is insane
- 5) The winner will go to Hong Kong
- 6) The temperature is rising
- 7) The bear is dying out
- 8) The dog is a mammal
- 9) The president changes every seven years
- 10) Your apartment keeps getting bigger and bigger
- 11) In ancient times, the dog was wild
- Moreover the role the denotation has in the predication may vary:
- 12) The men ran very fast
- 13) The men lifted the piana
- QUOTE: The role of a definite noun phrase in a sentence is to identify an entity (or a group of entities) about which a predication is made. On the other hand, it seems that such a construct can be used to denote very different things, as shown by the following examples: