Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-v5vhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-15T11:53:55.315Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Paul Elbourne, Definite Descriptions (Oxford Studies in Semantics and Pragmatics 1). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. Pp. ix + 251.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 May 2014

Elizabeth Coppock*
Department of Philosophy, Linguistics and Theory of Science, University of Gothenburg, Box 200, 405 30 Gothenburg, Sweden.
Get access


Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Book Review
Copyright © Nordic Association of Linguistics 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)



Beaver, David & Krahmer, Emiel. 2001. A partial account of presupposition projection. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 10, 147182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coppock, Elizabeth & Beaver, David. 2012. Weak uniqueness: The only difference between definites and indefinites. In Chereches, Anca (ed.), 22nd Semantics and Linguistic Theory Conference (SALT 22), The University of Chicago, 18 May – 20 May 2012, 527544. Scholar
Coppock, Elizabeth & Beaver, David. 2014. Definiteness and determinacy. Ms., University of Gothenburg & The University of Texas at Austin.Google Scholar
Cresswell, Max J. 1990. Entities and Indices. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donnellan, Keith S. 1966. Reference and definite descriptions. Philosophical Review 75 (3), 281304.Google Scholar
Dowty, David, Wall, Robert E. & Peters, Stanley. 1981. Introduction to Montague Semantics. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Elbourne, Paul. 2005. Situations and Individuals. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Fara, Delia Graff. 2001. Descriptions as predicates. Philosophical Studies 102, 142. [Originally published under the name Delia Graff.]Google Scholar
Haug, Dag. Partial dynamic semantics for anaphora: Compositionality without syntactic coindexation. Journal of Semantics, doi:10.1093/jos/fft008. Published online by Oxford University Press, 4 August 2013.Google Scholar
Heim, Irene. 1983. On the projection problem for presuppositions. In Flickinger, Daniel, Barlow, Michael & Westcoat, Michael (eds.), The Second West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL 2), 114125. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Heim, Irene & Kratzer, Angelika. 1998. Semantics in Generative Grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 2010. Situations in natural language semantics. In Zalta, Edward (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2010 edition). Stanford, CA: CSLI. Scholar
Lapierre, Serge. 1992. Partial functions in type theory. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 33, 493516.Google Scholar
Partee, Barbara H. 1986. Noun phrase interpretation and type-shifting principles. In Groenendijk, Jeroen, de Jongh, Dick & Stokhof, Martin (eds.), Studies in Discourse Representation Theory and the Theory of Generalized Quantifiers, 115143. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Schoubye, Anders J. 2009. Descriptions, truth value intuitions, and questions. Linguistics and Philosophy 32 (6), 583617.Google Scholar
Schoubye, Anders J. 2012. Against the argument from convention. Linguistics and Philosophy 35 (6), 515532.Google Scholar
Schoubye, Anders J. 2013. Ghosts, murderers, and the semantics of descriptions. Noûs 47 (3), 496533.Google Scholar
Strawson, Peter. 1950. On referring. Mind 59, 320344.Google Scholar
Tichý, Pavel. 1982. Foundations of partial type theory. Reports on Mathematical Logic 14, 5972.Google Scholar
Winter, Yoad. 2001. Flexibility Principles in Boolean Semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar