Premium
The Ambiguity Thesis Versus Kripke's Defence of Russell
Author(s) -
RAMACHANDRAN MURALI
Publication year - 1996
Publication title -
mind and language
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.905
H-Index - 68
eISSN - 1468-0017
pISSN - 0268-1064
DOI - 10.1111/j.1468-0017.1996.tb00052.x
Subject(s) - ambiguity , unitary state , attributive , epistemology , argument (complex analysis) , philosophy , linguistics , law , political science , biochemistry , chemistry
In his influential paper ‘Speaker's Reference and Semantic Reference’, Kripke defends Russell's theory of descriptions against the charge that the existence of referential and attributive uses of descriptions reflects a semantic ambiguity. He presents a purely defensive argument to show that Russell's theory is not refuted by the referential usage and a number of methodological considerations which apparently tell in favour of Russell's unitary theory over an ambiguity theory. In this paper, I put forward a case for the ambiguity theory that thwarts Kripke's defensive strategy and argue that it is not undermined by any of his methodological points.