In “On Referring” Peter Strawson pointed out that incomplete descriptions pose a problem for Russell’s analysis of definite descriptions. Howard Wettstein and Michael Devitt appealed to incomplete descriptions to argue, first, that Russell’s analysis of definite descriptions fails, and second, that Donnellan’s referential/attributive distinction has semantic bite. Stephen Neale has defended Russell’s analysis of definite descriptions against Wettstein’s and Devitt’s objections. In this paper, my aim is twofold. First, I rebut Neale’s objections to Wettstein’s and Devitt’s argument and argue that Neale’s attempt to provide an account of referential descriptions within a Russellian framework fails. Second, contra Devitt and Wettstein, I argue that the problem posed by incomplete descriptions shows that Donnellan was right in believing that referential descriptions refer even if the definite description fits nothing.

中文翻译：

---

参考和不完整的描述

在“论指称”中，彼得·斯特劳森指出，不完整的描述给罗素对确定描述的分析带来了问题。Howard Wettstein 和 Michael Devitt 诉诸不完整的描述来论证，首先，Russell 对明确描述的分析失败了，其次，Donnellan 的指称/定语区别具有语义上的咬合。斯蒂芬·尼尔为罗素对明确描述的分析辩护，反对韦特斯坦和德维特的反对意见。在本文中，我的目标是双重的。首先，我反驳 Neale 对 Wettstein 和 Devitt 的论点的反对意见，并认为 Neale 在罗素框架内提供参照描述的尝试失败了。其次，与德维特和韦特斯坦相反，