rEfErEntial DEscriptions anD conVErsational iMplicaturEs

The standard Gricean defense of russell in the face of referential uses of descriptions has been to claim that these uses are conversational implicatures. My argument in “The case for referential Descriptions” focused on showing that these uses are not particularized implicatures. I now adapt and develop this argument to show that they are not generalized implicatures nor otherwise pragmatic. I consider and reject bach’s contrary proposal in “Descriptions: Points of reference.” Finally I look critically at Neale’s new view in “This, That, and the Other” that the debate between referentialists and russellians is “the product of a powerful illusion.”