"When a speaker says, "The Φ is Ψ," where the Φ" is used attributively, if there is no Φ, we cannot correctly report the speaker as having said of this or that person or thing that it is Ψ. But if the definite description is used referentially we can report the speaker as having attributed Ψ to something. And we may refer to what the speaker referred to, using whatever description or name suits our purpose." (Donellan, 1966, p. 301)
In this quote Donellan gives a compelling example of the implications of what he calls attributive and referential definite descriptions. This example allows us to understand the distinction between situations in which we attempt to attribute definite descriptions (Φ) to non-existent entities, and when a definite description (Φ) is used to referentially to say something (Ψ) about said Φ. Donellan argues that to incorrectly attribute Φ to some object is not a null statement, but that given the understanding of the listener, the proposition can still be understood and the listener may then refer to that same object with whatever Φ is appropriate given their knowledge of that object. In this Donellan is arguing to reference something does not mean that anyone must make a correct statement about an object. Donellan uses this argument to rebuttal what Russell has put forth, because be believes that Russell's description of language appeals to only attributive uses. This perspective on definite description brings forth the consideration of implications, and what may be implied when a particular object of reference is Φ.
Donellan stated that a given proposition can contain both a referential or attributive use of Φ, however, I am curious about which perspective is considered when determining what function has been used; in a room of 30 individuals, all of which have a different understanding of an object that I have just made a "The Φ is Ψ," statement about, how do I know what sort of statement I have made?
Are you asking, how can one know that the statement they just made is referential or attributive? or how can one know whether the statement they make will be interpreted by others as referential or attributive? For the former one, I suppose that the issuer of the statement should understand the intentions behind the statement he made, whether he is trying to refer to an object with a referential statement or assert an attribute. For the latter question, I guess that it is impossible to know whether the speaker's intentions for a statement should be accurately interpreted by the listener, which is why miscommunication occurs so frequently.
ReplyDelete