Descriptive Names vs. Descriptive Anaphora

Alan Berger presents analyses of (i) descriptive names (those the referents of which are fixed by description) and (ii) pronouns in discourses that are anaphoric on expressions occurring in preceding sentences. Each analysis has much to be said for it. In my opinion, however, he muddies the water by treating descriptive names and discourse anaphora as if they were two instances of essentially the same thing. He treats descriptive names as if they were anaphoric on expressions used in their original introduction, and discourse anaphors as if they were rigid singular terms the referents of which are determined descriptively. Neither, in my view, is correct. Berger divides proper names into F (or focusing) -type and S (or satisfying)-type. The referent of an F-type name is determined by the fact that speakers focus on it, and intend to use the name to refer to it. In ostensive baptisms, speakers have an object in mind, often because they are, or have been, in perceptual contact with it. When they decide to name it, they may do so in various ways. They may say, Let's call him lFido' (pointing at a certain dog), or Let's call that dog 'Fido\ or even Let's call the dog we bought this morning 'Fido'. In these cases, the referent of n is not fixed by a description D in Kripke's sense, even if D is used to introduce n. Rather, as Berger nicely points out, D is merely a tool used to direct attention to the individual the speaker has in mind, and intends to use n to talk about. It is this intention, rather than satisfaction of any description, that determines the referent of an F-type name. Thus, even if D turns out not to denote the object o the speaker has in mind the baptism will succeed in introducing n as a name of o, provided that D has played its role of drawing attention to o. Of course, not all F-type names are introduced with formal baptisms. People already familiar with a certain body of water might simply begin calling it Green Lake. If the practice holds, and in time becomes conventionalized, the lake will acquire an F-type name (whether or not it is really green), despite the fact that there may have been no single use which established the connection between the name and its bearer. Similarly, a name n that already