On what grounds does Strawson criticize Russell 's theory of

description? What alternative account does he provides a solution to

the problems associated with meaning?
INTRODUCTION
P.F. Strawson, in his famous essay "On Referring," intends to criticize
the central idea contained in Bertrand Russell's "On Denoting", the
theory of descriptions. Strawson argued that Russell's theory failed to
capture the essential nature of meaning and reference in natural
language. He proposed an alternative account of reference that
emphasized the importance of contextual factors in determining the
meaning of referring expressions. In this essay, we will discuss
Strawson's criticisms of Russell's theory of descriptions and his
alternative account of reference.

Bertrand Russell's theory of descriptions is one of the most significant

contributions to the field of philosophy of language, which attempts to
explain the meaning and function of language.

the theory proposes that definite descriptions, such as "the present

king of France," do not refer to anything because there is no present
king of France. Instead, the sentence "the present king of France is
wise" is analyzed as saying that there is one and only one thing that is
currently the king of France, and that thing is wise. In other words, the
sentence is analyzed as a statement about a unique individual rather
than a reference to a nonexistent entity.

Russell's theory of descriptions allowed that propositions containing

denoting phrases to possess a truth value even if there was nothing
referenced (denoted)

CRITICISMS OF RUSSELL'S THEORY

russell's theory of descriptions ignores some crucial featutes of

language and, as a result, runs into trouble. Strawson argues that
Russell's theory of descriptions relies on an overly logical view of
language and fails to capture the way that language is actually used in
practice.

copy from notes( strawson finds that logicians..................in this

sense.)
Strawson aims to show that Russell’s theory of definite descriptions fails
to provide a correct account of the use of expressions of the form “the-
so-and-so” (e.g. “the table,” “the king of France”). Strawson asks us to
consider the sentence

“The king of France is wise” as the sentence S.

How can S be meaningful even when there is not at present a king of

France? Let us abbreviate the phrase “the king of France” as D.
According to Strawson’s interpretation of Russell, it is a mistake to think
that the grammatical subject (the phrase D) of S is also the logical
subject of S. This means that S is not logically a subject-predicate
sentence but a complex kind of existential proposition part of which
might be described as a “uniquely existential” proposition. Russell does
this, according to Strawson, by rewriting sentences in ordinary language
into symbolic ones to reveal their logical form.

Strawson continues that if Russell’s theory is correct, anyone who

would assert S would be asserting three propositions:

(a) There is a king of France;

(b)There is not more than one king of France, and

(c) There is nothing which is king of France and is not wise.

Since S is a conjunction of three propositions and one of its component

parts (a) is false, then the assertion as a whole is significant but false.

Strawson challenged the distinction btwn the grammatical and the

logical forms of language mentioned by russell. Strawson argues that
Russell's theory of descriptions relies on an overly logical view of
language and fails to capture the way that language is actually used in
practice.

Strawson argues that Russell's analysis of definite descriptions does not

accurately reflect the way in which they are used in everyday language.
He claims that when we use a definite description like "the present king
of France," we are presupposing the existence of a present king of
France, even if there is no such thing in reality. We are not making a
statement about a unique individual who happens to be the king of
France, but rather we are using the description to refer to a particular
thing in the world. For example, if someone were to say "the present
king of France is bald," we would interpret them as referring to a
nonexistent entity, rather than making a statement about a unique
individual.

In order to show why Russell was mistaken, Strawson draws certain

distinctions that russell did no pay attention to.

an expression or a sentence is not the same as its use or its utterance.

so, a distinction can be drawn between:

(A1) a sentence, (A2) a use of a sentence, (A3) an utterance of a

sentence,

and correspondingly, between:

(B1) an expression, (B2) a use of an expression, and (B3) an utterance

of an expression.

copy from notes ( strawson explains.......... neither be true nor false.)

We use the expression to mention or refer to a particular person in the

context of using the sentence to talk about him.

(copy from notes moreover.........................

So Strawson’s theory introduces truth-value gaps: some meaningful

sentences are neither true nor false. More precisely: some meaningful
sentence types have tokens that are neither true nor false.

sentence types& tokens ( from notes)

CONCLUSION
In conclusion, P.F. Strawson's critique of Russell's theory of descriptions
and his alternative account of meaning provide an important
contribution to our understanding of language and communication. By
emphasizing the role of context and intention in determining meaning,
Strawson is able to provide a more flexible and nuanced account of
language use, which takes into account both the linguistic and non-
linguistic factors that affect meaning. While Strawson's account has
been subject to criticism and refinement over the years, it remains a
powerful and influential framework for understanding how language is
used to refer to the world.
Strawson is a representative of the Ordinary Language Philosophy. And
by the following quote he canhave a better understanding of his
approach: “Neither Aristotlian nor Russellian rules give the exact logic
of any expression of ordinary language; for ordinary language has no
exact logic”.