| |
| | Reference+Comm. 20Jan97 |
 | | For if the description theory of reference is correct, there is manifestly an obvious natural semantic kind in common between definite descriptions and proper names: they are all associated with properties in the minds of their users, and hence share a special, worth-giving-a-name-to relation to whatever it is that possesses the associated properties. |
 | | Hence, on the description theory, `beech' in their mouths refers to whatever has the property the experts associate with the word `beech'--which ensures, as it should, that `beech' in the mouths of the ignorant has the same reference as it has in the mouths of the experts. |
 | | But, as we have just been emphasising, the description theory is committed to `water' in our mouths referring to whatever has the property we associate with `water', and the test for being the property we associate with `water' is that it is the, possibly disjunctive, feature common to the possible cases we describe as water. |
| philrsss.anu.edu.au /people-defaults/fcj/ref.html (10080 words) |
|