Philosophical Studies

, Volume 168, Issue 2, pp 371–395 | Cite as

Indefinites and intentional identity

  • Samuel Cumming


This paper investigates the truth conditions of sentences containing indefinite noun phrases, focusing on occurrences in attitude reports, and, in particular, a puzzle case due to Walter Edelberg. It is argued that indefinites semantically contribute the (thought-)object they denote, in a manner analogous to attributive definite descriptions. While there is an existential reading of attitude reports containing indefinites, it is argued that the existential quantifier is contributed by the de re interpretation of the indefinite (as the de re reading adds existential quantification to the interpretation of definites on Kaplan’s analysis).


Indefinites Intentional identity Attitude reports Truth conditions Referential/attributive de re/de dicto 


  1. Aloni, M. (2001). Quantification under conceptual covers. PhD thesis, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  2. Barker, C. (2002). Continuations and the nature of quantification. Natural Language Semantics, 10, 211–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bende-Farkas, A., & Kamp, H. (2001). Indefinites and binding: From specificity to incorporation. Lecture Notes. Helsinki: ESSLLI.Google Scholar
  4. Cumming, S. (2012). The semantic dilemma of indefinites. MS, UCLA.Google Scholar
  5. Cumming, S. (2013). Creatures of darkness. Analytic Philosophy, 54.Google Scholar
  6. Donnellan, K. (1966). Reference and definite descriptions. Philosophical Review, 75(3), 231–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Donnellan, K. (1979). Speaker reference, descriptions and anaphora. In U. French & H. K. Wettstein (Eds.), Contemporary perspectives in the philosophy of language (pp. 28–44). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota.Google Scholar
  8. Edelberg, W. (1986). A new puzzle about intentional identity. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 15(1), 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Edelberg, W. (1992). Intentional identity and the attitudes. Linguistics and Philosophy, 15(6), 561–596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Farkas, D. (2000). Scope matters. In K. von Heusinger & U. Egli (Eds.), Reference and anaphoric relations (pp. 79–108). Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fodor, J. A. (1987). Psychosemantics: The problem of meaning in the philosophy of mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  12. Fodor, J. A. (1990). A theory of content and other essays. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  13. Geach, P. (1967). Intentional identity. Journal of Philosophy, 74(20), 627–632.Google Scholar
  14. Geach, P. T. (1962). Reference and generality. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics, Vol. 3: Speech acts (pp. 43–58). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  16. Hawthorne, J., & Manley, D. (2012). The reference book. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Heim, I. (1982). On the semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases. PhD thesis, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.Google Scholar
  18. Higgins, F. R. (1979). The pseudo-cleft construction in English. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
  19. Hobbs, J. (1990). Literature and cognition. Palo Alto, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
  20. Jayez, J., & Tovena, L. (2002). Determiners and (un)certainty. In B. Jackson (Ed.), Proceedings of SALT XII (pp. 164–183). San Diego: UC San Diego.Google Scholar
  21. Jayez, J., & Tovena, L. (2006). Epistemic determiners. Journal of Semantics, 23, 217–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kamp, H. (1981). A theory of truth and semantic representation. In J. Groenendijk, T. Janssen, & M. Stokhof (Eds.), Formal methods in the study of language, Part 1 (Vol. 135, pp. 277–322). Amsterdam: Mathematical Centre Tracts.Google Scholar
  23. Kamp, H. (1990). Prolegomena to a structural account of belief and other attitudes. In C. A. Anderson & J. Owens (Eds.), Propositional attitudes: The role of content in logic, language, and mind. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar
  24. Kamp, H., & Reyle, U. (1993). From discourse to logic. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  25. Kaplan, D. (1968). Quantifying in. Synthese, 19(1–2), 178–214.Google Scholar
  26. Kaplan, D. (1989). Demonstratives. In J. Almog, J. Perry, & H. Wettstein (Eds.), Themes from Kaplan (pp. 481–564). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Kaplan, D. (2012). An idea of Donnellan. In J. Almog & P. Leonardi (Eds.), Having in mind: The philosophy of Keith Donnellan (pp. 122–175). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Karttunen, L. (1976). Discourse referents. In J. McCawley (Ed.), Syntax and semantics: Notes from the linguistic underground (Vol. 7, pp. 363–386). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  29. King, J. (1988). Are indefinite descriptions ambiguous? Philosophical Studies, 53(3), 417–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kripke, S. (1972). Naming and necessity. In D. Davidson & G. Harman (Eds.), Semantics of natural language (pp. 253-355). Dordrecht: D. Reidel.Google Scholar
  31. Kripke, S. (1977). Speaker’s reference and semantic reference. In P. French, T. Uehling, & H. Wettstein (Eds.), Midwest studies in philosophy, Vol. II: Studies in the philosophy of language (pp. 255–276). Morris, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  32. Lewis, D. (1979a). Attitudes de dicto and de se. Philosophical Review, 88, 513–543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lewis, D. (1979b). Scorekeeping in a language game. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 8(3), 339–359.Google Scholar
  34. Ludlow, P., & Neale, S. (1991). Indefinite descriptions: In defense of Russell. Linguistics & Philosophy, 14, 761–825.Google Scholar
  35. Neale, S. (1990). Descriptive pronouns and donkey anaphora. Journal of Philosophy, 87(3), 113–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Quine, W. V. (1956). Quantifiers and propositional attitudes. Journal of Philosophy, 53, 177–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Quine, W. V. (1960). Word and object. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  38. Recanati, F. (2013). Mental Files. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Russell, B. (1905). On denoting. Mind, 14, 479–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Stanley, J., & Szabó, Z. (2000). On quantifier domain restriction. Mind & Language, 15(2 & 3), 219–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Stone, M., & Webber, B. (1998). Textual economy through close coupling of syntax and semantics. In Proceedings of INLG 1998 (pp. 178–187).Google Scholar
  42. Strawson, P. (1974). Subject and predicate in logic and grammar. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
  43. Strawson, P. F. (1950). On referring. Mind, 59(235), 320–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. van Rooy, R. (2001). Anaphoric relations across attitude contexts. In K. von Heusinger & U. Egli (Eds.), Reference and anaphoric relations (pp. 157–181). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  45. Zimmermann, T. E. (1998). Remarks on the epistemic role of discourse referents. In L. Moss, J. Ginzburg, & M. de Rijke (Eds.), Logic, language and computation II (pp. 346–368). Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of California, Los AngelesLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations