Works Cited

Gregory Bochner

doi:10.1017/9781316999073.009

Works Cited

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 December 2021

Gregory Bochner

Show author details

Gregory Bochner: Affiliation:
École Normale Supérieure, Paris

Book contents

Get access

Summary

A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.

Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'

Type: Chapter
Information: Naming and Indexicality , pp. 266 - 281

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316999073.009 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2021

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.)

References

Works Cited

Ackerman, D. (1979a). ‘Proper Names, Essences, and Intuitive Beliefs.’ Theory and Decision 11(1): 5–26.CrossRef Google Scholar

Ackerman, D. (1979b). ‘Proper Names, Propositional Attitudes and Non-Descriptive Connotations.’ Philosophical Studies 35(1): 55–69.Google Scholar

Almog, J. (1984a). ‘Semantical Anthropology.’ Midwest Studies in Philosophy 9(1): 478–89.Google Scholar

Almog, J. (1984b). ‘Would You Believe That?’ Synthese 58(1): 1–37.Google Scholar

Almog, J. (1986). ‘Naming Without Necessity.’ Journal of Philosophy 83(4): 210–42.CrossRef Google Scholar

Almog, J. (2014). Referential Mechanics. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRef Google Scholar

Almog, J., & Leonardi, P. (2009). The Philosophy of David Kaplan. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Almog, J., & Leonardi, P. (2012a). Having in Mind: The Philosophy of Keith Donnellan. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Almog, J., & Leonardi, P. (2012b). Keith Donnellan: Essays on Reference, Language, and Mind. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Almog, J., Perry, J., & Wettstein, H. (1989). Themes from Kaplan. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Bach, K. (1987). Thought and Reference. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

Bach, K. (2002). ‘Giorgione Was So-Called Because of His Name.’ Philosophical Perspectives 16(16): 73–103.Google Scholar

Bach, K. (2007). ‘Reflections on Reference and Reflexivity.’ In O’Rourke, M. & Washington, C. (eds.), Situating Semantics: Essays on the Philosophy of John Perry. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 394–424.Google Scholar

Bach, K., & Harnish, M. (1979). Linguistic Communication and Speech Acts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Barcan Marcus, R. (1961). ‘Modalities and Intensional Languages.’ Synthese 13(4): 303–22.Google Scholar

Barcan Marcus, R. (1983). ‘Rationality and Believing the Impossible.’ Journal of Philosophy 80(6): 321–38.Google Scholar

Bealer, G. (2002). ‘Modal Epistemology and the Rationalist Renaissance.’ In Szabo Gendler, T. & Hawthorne, J. (eds.), Conceivability and Possibility. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 71–125.Google Scholar

Beaney, M. (1997). The Frege Reader. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar

Block, N., & Stalnaker, R. (1999). ‘Conceptual Analysis, Dualism, and the Explanatory Gap.’ Philosophical Review 108(1): 1–46.Google Scholar

Bochner, G. (2009). ‘Three-Dimensional Semantics.’ In Riester, A. & Solstad, T. (eds.), Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 13, Vol. 5, Series SinSpeC. Working Papers of the SFB 732. University of Stuttgart, 67–82.Google Scholar

Bochner, G. (2013). ‘The Metasyntactic Interpretation of Two-Dimensionalism.’ Philosophical Studies 163(3): 611–26.Google Scholar

Bochner, G. (2014a). ‘Posing Frege’s Puzzle Without Presupposing Linguistic Senses.’ Gottlob Frege’s Puzzle. A Reexamination of the Cognitive Significance Phenomenon, Revista de Filosofía de la Universidad de Costa Rica 53(136) (extraordinario): 89–96.Google Scholar

Bochner, G. (2014b). ‘The Anti-Individualist Revolution in the Philosophy of Language.’ Linguistics and Philosophy 37(2): 91–120.Google Scholar

Bochner, G. (2017). ‘Assertion De Re.’ In Brezillon, P., Turner, R., and Penco, C. (eds.), Modeling and Using Context (CONTEXT-17). Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence. Paris, France: Springer, 3–14.Google Scholar

Bochner, G. (2018). ‘Singular Truth-Conditions without Singular Propositions.’ Synthese 195(6): 2741–60.Google Scholar

Bochner, G. (2021). ‘A Puzzle about Assertion.’ In Biggs, S. & Geirsson, H. (eds.), The Routledge Handbook on Linguistic Reference. New York: Taylor & Francis: 268–80.Google Scholar

Boghossian, P. (1994). ‘The Transparency of Mental Content.’ Philosophical Perspectives 8: 33–50.CrossRef Google Scholar

Boghossian, P. (1997). ‘What the Externalist Can Know A Priori.’ Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society (New Series) 97: 161–75.Google Scholar

Boghossian, P. (2011). ‘The Transparency of Mental Content Revisited.’ Philosophical Studies 155(3): 457–65.CrossRef Google Scholar

Boghossian, P. (2015). ‘Further Thoughts on the Transparency of Mental Content.’ In Goldberg, S. (ed.), Externalism, Self-Knowledge, and Skepticism: New Essays. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 97–112.Google Scholar

Boghossian, P. A., & Peacocke, C. (2000). New Essays on the A Priori. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Borg, E. (2004). Minimal Semantics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Brody, B. A. (1977). ‘Kripke on Proper Names.’ Midwest Studies in Philosophy 2(1): 64–9. (Reprinted in A. F. Peter, T. E. Uehling, & H. K. Wettstein (eds.), 1979. Contemporary Perspectives in the Philosophy of Language. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 75–80.)Google Scholar

Brown, J. (2004) Anti-Individualism and Knowledge. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Burge, T. (1973). ‘Reference and Proper Names.’ Journal of Philosophy 70(14): 425–39. (Reprinted in P. Ludlow (ed.), 1997. Readings in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 593–608.)Google Scholar

Burge, T. (1977). ‘Belief De Re.’ Journal of Philosophy 74(6): 338–62.Google Scholar

Burge, T. (1979). ‘Individualism and the Mental.’ Midwest Studies in Philosophy 4(1): 73–122. (Reprinted in A. Pessin & S. Goldberg (eds.), 1996. The Twin Earth Chronicles: Twenty Years of Reflection on Hilary Putnam’s ‘The Meaning of “Meaning”’. New York: M. E. Sharpe, 125–41.)Google Scholar

Burge, T. (1988). ‘Individualism and Self-Knowledge.’ Journal of Philosophy 85(11): 649–63.Google Scholar

Burks, A. (1949). ‘Icon, Index and Symbol.’ Philosophical and Phenomenological Research 9: 673–89.Google Scholar

Byrne, A., & Pryor, J. (2006). ‘Bad Intensions.’ In García-Carpintero, M. & Macià, J. (eds.), Two-Dimensional Semantics: Foundation and Applications. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 38–54.CrossRef Google Scholar

Carnap, R. (1947). Meaning and Necessity: A Study in Semantics and Modal Logic. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Carston, R. (2002). Thoughts and Utterances: The Pragmatics of Explicit Communication. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Chalmers, D. J. (1996). The Conscious Mind: In Search of a Fundamental Theory. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Chalmers, D. J. (2002a). ‘Does Conceivability Entail Possibility?’ In Gendler, T. & Hawthorne, J. (eds.), Conceivability and Possibility. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 145–200.Google Scholar

Chalmers, D. J. (2002b). ‘On Sense and Intension.’ Philosophical Perspectives 16(16): 135–82.Google Scholar

Chalmers, D. J. (2002c). ‘The Components of Content.’ In Chalmers, D. J. (ed.), Philosophy of Mind: Classical and Contemporary Readings. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 608–33.Google Scholar

Chalmers, D. J. (2004). ‘Epistemic Two-Dimensional Semantics.’ Philosophical Studies 118(1–2): 153–226.Google Scholar

Chalmers, D. J. (2006a). ‘The Foundations of Two-Dimensional Semantics.’ In García- Carpintero, M. & Macià, J. (eds.), Two-Dimensional Semantics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 55–140.CrossRef Google Scholar

Chalmers, D. J. (2006b). ‘Two-Dimensional Semantics.’ In Lepore, E. & Smith, B. (eds.), Oxford Handbook of the Philosophy of Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 574–607.Google Scholar

Chalmers, D. J. (2012). Constructing the World. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Chalmers, D. J., & Jackson, F. (2001). ‘Conceptual Analysis and Reductive Explanation.’ Philosophical Review 110: 315–60.Google Scholar

Crane, T. (1991). ‘All the Difference in the World.’ The Philosophical Quarterly 41(162): 1–25. (Reprinted in A. Pessin & S. Goldberg (eds.), 1996. The Twin Earth Chronicles: Twenty Years of Reflection on Hilary Putnam’s ‘The Meaning of “Meaning”’. New York: M. E. Sharpe, 284–304.)CrossRef Google Scholar

Crossley, J., & Humberstone, L. (1977). ‘The Logic of “Actually”.’ Reports on Mathematical Logic 8: 11–29.Google Scholar

Davies, M. (2006). ‘Reference, Contingency, and the Two-Dimensional Framework.’ In García- Carpintero, M. & Macià, J. (eds.), Two-Dimensional Semantics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 141–75.Google Scholar

Davies, M., & Humberstone, L. (1980). ‘Two Notions of Necessity.’ Philosophical Studies 38(1): 1–30.CrossRef Google Scholar

Devitt, M. (1974). ‘Singular Terms.’ Journal of Philosophy 71(7): 183–205.CrossRef Google Scholar

Devitt, M. (1981). Designation. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar

Devitt, M., & Sterelny, K. (1999). Language and Reality: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Language. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Donnellan, K. S. (1962). ‘Necessity and Criteria.’ Journal of Philosophy 59(22): 647–58.CrossRef Google Scholar

Donnellan, K. S. (1966). ‘Reference and Definite Descriptions.’ Philosophical Review 75(3): 281–304. (Reprinted in A. P. Martinich (ed.), 1990. The Philosophy of Language. New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press, 235–47.)Google Scholar

Donnellan, K. S. (1970). ‘Proper Names and Identifying Descriptions.’ Synthese 21(3–4): 335–58. (Reprinted in D. Davidson & G. Harman (eds.), 1972. Semantics of Natural Language. Dordrecht: D. Reidel, 356–79.)Google Scholar

Donnellan, K. S. (1974). ‘Speaking of Nothing.’ Philosophical Review 83(1): 3–31. (Reprinted in S. P. Schwartz (ed.), 1977. Naming, Necessity and Natural Kinds. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 216–44.)Google Scholar

Donnellan, K. S. (1977). ‘The Contingent A Priori and Rigid Designators.’ Midwest Studies in Philosophy 2: 12–27. (Reprinted in A. F. Peter, T. E. Uehling, & H. K. Wettstein (eds.), 1979. Contemporary Perspectives in the Philosophy of Language. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 45–60.)Google Scholar

Donnellan, K. S. (1983). ‘Kripke and Putnam on Natural Kind Terms.’ In Ginet, C. & Shoemaker, S. (eds.), Knowledge and Mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 84–104.Google Scholar

Drapeau Vieira Contim, F. (2006). Le Nécessaire, l’Apriori, et la Référence Directe. PhD Dissertation. Université de Rennes 1.Google Scholar

Dummett, M. (1973). Frege: Philosophy of Language. London: Duckworth (2nd edition: 1981a. London: Duckworth).Google Scholar

Dummett, M. (1975). “What Is a Theory of Meaning?” In Guttenplan, S. (ed.), Mind and Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 97–138. (Reprinted in P. Ludlow (ed.), 1997. Readings in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 129–55.)Google Scholar

Dummett, M. (1978). Truth and Other Enigmas. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Dummett, M. (1981b). The Interpretation of Frege’s Philosophy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Dummett, M. (1991). The Logical Basis of Metaphysics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Elbourne, P. (2005). Situations and Individuals. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Engel, P. (1985). Identité et référence: La théorie des noms propres chez Frege et Kripke. Paris: Presses de l’École Normale Supérieure.Google Scholar

Evans, G. (1973). ‘The Causal Theory of Names.’ Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society (Supplementary Volume) 47: 187–208. (Reprinted in A. P. Martinich (ed.), 1990. The Philosophy of Language. New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press, 295–307.)CrossRef Google Scholar

Evans, G. (1979). ‘Reference and Contingency.’ The Monist 62(2): 161–89. (Reprinted in G. Evans, 1985. Collected Papers. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 178–213.)Google Scholar

Evans, G. (1981). ‘Understanding Demonstratives.’ In Parret, H. & Bouveresse, J. (eds.), Meaning and Understanding. Berlin and New York: De Gruyter, 280–303. (Reprinted in P. Ludlow (ed.), 1997. Readings in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 717–44.)Google Scholar

Evans, G. (1982). The Varieties of Reference. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

Evans, G. (1985/1996). Collected Papers. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

Everett, A. (2005). ‘Recent Defenses of Descriptivism.’ Mind and Language 20(1): 103–39.Google Scholar

Fara, D. G. (2015a). ‘“Literal” Uses of Proper Names.’ In Bianchi, A. (ed.), On Reference. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 251–79.Google Scholar

Fara, D. G. (2015b). ‘Names Are Predicates.’ Philosophical Review 124(1): 59–117.Google Scholar

Fiengo, R., & May, R. (2006). De Lingua Belief. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Fine, K. (2007). Semantic Relationism. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Fitch, G. W. (2004). Saul Kripke. Chesham: Acumen Publishing Milited.Google Scholar

Fodor, J. A. (1987). Psychosemantics: The Problem of Meaning in the Philosophy of Mind. Cambridge, MA/London: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Fodor, J. A. (1994). The Elm and the Expert. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Fodor, J. A. (2008). LOT 2: The Language of Thought Revisited. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Frege, G. (1879). Begriffsschrift, eine der arithmetischen nachgebildete Formelsprache des reinen Denkens. Halle an der Saale: Louis Nebert. (Translated as ‘Begriffsschrift’ by P. Geach, in P. Geach & M. Black (eds.), 1970. Translations from the Philosophical Writings of Gottlob Frege. Oxford: Blackwell, 1–20.)Google Scholar

Frege, G. (1891). ‘“Funktion und Begriff”: Vortrag, gehalten in der Sitzung vom 9. Januar 1891 der Jenaischen Gesellschaft für Medizin und Naturwissenschaft, Jena: Hermann Pohle.’ (Translated as ‘Function and Concept’ by P. Geach, in P. Geach, & M. Black (eds.), 1970. Translations from the Philosophical Writings of Gottlob Frege. Oxford: Blackwell, 21–41).Google Scholar

Frege, G. (1892a). ‘Comments on Sinn and Bedeutung.’ In Beaney, M. (ed.), 1997. The Frege Reader. Oxford: Blackwell, 172–80.Google Scholar

Frege, G. (1892b). ‘Über Sinn und Bedeutung.’ In his Zeitschrift für Philosophie und philosophische Kritik, 100: 25–50. (Translated as “On Sense and Reference” by P. Geach, in P. Geach & M. Black (eds.), 1970. Translations from the Philosophical Writings of Gottlob Frege. Oxford: Blackwell, 56–78.)Google Scholar

Frege, G. (1904). “Letter to Russell” (13 November 1904). In Frege, G (1980). Philosophical and Mathematical Correspondence. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Frege, G. (1906a). ‘A Brief Survey of My Logical Doctrines’ (Extract). In Beaney, M. (ed.), 1997. The Frege Reader. Oxford: Blackwell, 299–300.Google Scholar

Frege, G. (1906b). ‘Introduction to Logic’ (Extract). In Beaney, M. (ed.), The Frege Reader. 1997. Oxford: Blackwell, 290–2.Google Scholar

Frege, G. (1918). ‘Der Gedanke: Eine logische Untersuchung.’ Beiträge zur Philosophie des Deutschen Idealismus I: 58–77. (Translated in 1956 as ‘The Thought: A Logical Inquiry’, Mind (New Series) 65(259): 289–311.)Google Scholar

Frege, G. (1980). Philosophical and Mathematical Correspondence. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

García-Carpintero, M. (2006). ‘Two-Dimensionalism: A Neo-Fregean Interpretation.’ In García- Carpintero, M. & Macià, J. (eds.), Two-Dimensional Semantics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 181–204.Google Scholar

García-Carpintero, M., & Macià, J. (2006). Two-Dimensional Semantics: Foundation and Applications. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRef Google Scholar

Geach, P. T. (1962/1968). Reference and Generality. An Examination of Some Medieval and Modern Theories. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar

Geach, P. T. (1972). Logic Matters. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Geurts, B. (1997). ‘Good News about the Description Theory of Names.’ Journal of Semantics 14(4): 319–48.Google Scholar

Glezakos, S. (2009a). ‘Can Frege Pose Frege’s Puzzle?’ In Almog, J. & Leonardi, P. (eds.), The Philosophy of David Kaplan. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 202–7.Google Scholar

Glezakos, S. (2009b). ‘Public Proper Names, Idiolectal Identifying Descriptions.’ Linguistics and Philosophy 32(3): 317–26.Google Scholar

Goldberg, S. (2015). Externalism, Self-Knowledge, and Skepticism: New Essays. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Grice, H. P. (1957). ‘Meaning.’ Philosophical Review 66(3): 377–88. (Reprinted in H. P. Grice, 1989. Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 213–23.)CrossRef Google Scholar

Grice, H. P. (1975). ‘Logic and Conversation.’ In Cole, P. and Morgan, J. (eds.), Syntax and Semantics Volume 3: Speech Acts. Academic Press, New York, 22–40. (Reprinted in H. P. Grice, 1989. Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.)Google Scholar

Grice, H. P. (1989). Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Haas-Spohn, U. (1997a). ‘Hidden Indexicality and Subjective Meaning.’ PhD dissertation, University of Tubingen. (Translated from German by T. E. Zimmermann.)Google Scholar

Haas-Spohn, U. (1997b). ‘The Context-Dependency of Natural Kind Terms.’ In Künne, W., Newen, A., & Anduschus, M. (eds.), Direct Reference, Indexicality, and Propositional Attitudes. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, 333–50.Google Scholar

Hazen, A. (1976). ‘Expressive Completeness in Modal Logic.’ Journal of Philosophical Logic 5: 25–46.Google Scholar

Heim, I., & Kratzer, A. (1998). Semantics in Generative Grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Hughes, C. (2004). Names, Necessity, and Identity. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

Humphreys, P. W., & Fetzer, J. H. (1998). The New Theory of Reference: Kripke, Marcus, and Its Origins. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar

Jackson, F. (1998a). From Metaphysics to Ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Jackson, F. (1998b). ‘Reference and Description Revisited.’ Philosophical Perspectives 12(12): 201–18.Google Scholar

Jackson, F. (2000). ‘Representation, Scepticism and the A Priori.’ In Boghossian, P. A. & Peacocke, C. (eds.), New Essays on the A Priori. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 320–32.Google Scholar

Jeshion, R. (2001). ‘Donnellan on Neptune.’ Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 63(1): 111–35.Google Scholar

Jeshion, R. (2004). ‘Descriptive Descriptive Names.’ In Reimer, M. & Bezuidenhout, A. (eds.), Descriptions and Beyond. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 591–613.Google Scholar

Jeshion, R. (2010). New Essays on Singular Thought. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Jeshion, R. (2015a). ‘Names Not Predicates.’ In Bianchi, A. (ed.), On Reference. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 223–48.Google Scholar

Jeshion, R. (2015b). ‘Referentialism and Predicativism about Proper Names.’ Erkenntnis 80(S2): 363–404.Google Scholar

Jeshion, R. (2017). ‘“The” Problem for the-Predicativism.’ Philosophical Review 126(2): 219–40.Google Scholar

Justice, J. (2001). ‘On Sense and Reflexivity.’ Journal of Philosophy 98(7): 351–64.Google Scholar

Justice, J. (2003). ‘The Semantics of Rigid Designation.’ Ratio (New Series) 16(1): 33–48.Google Scholar

Kaplan, D. (1968). ‘Quantifying In.’ Synthese 19(1–2): 178–214.Google Scholar

Kaplan, D. (1973). ‘Bob and Carol and Ted and Alice.’ In Hintikka, J., Moravcsik, J. M. E., & Suppes, P. (eds.), Approaches to Natural Language: Proceedings of the 1970 Stanford Workshop on Grammar and Semantics. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company, 490–518.Google Scholar

Kaplan, D. (1975). ‘How to Russell a Frege-Church.’ Journal of Philosophy 72(19): 716–29.Google Scholar

Kaplan, D. (1978). ‘Dthat.’ In Cole, P. (ed.), Syntax and Semantics 9. New York: Academic Press, 221–43. (Reprinted in A. P. Martinich (ed.), 1990. The Philosophy of Language. New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press, 316–29.)Google Scholar

Kaplan, D. (1979). ‘On the Logic of Demonstratives.’ Journal of Philosophical Logic 8(1): 81–98. (Reprinted in A. F. Peter, T. E. Uehling, & H. K. Wettstein (eds.), 1979. Contemporary Perspectives in the Philosophy of Language. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 401–12. Reference pages to the latter.)Google Scholar

Kaplan, D. (1989a). ‘Demonstratives.’ In Almog, J., Perry, J., & Wettstein, H. (eds.), Themes from Kaplan. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 481–563.Google Scholar

Kaplan, D. (1989b). ‘Afterthoughts.’ In Almog, J., Perry, J., & Wettstein, H. (eds.), Themes from Kaplan. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 565–614.Google Scholar

Kaplan, D. (1990a). ‘Thoughts on Demonstratives.’ In Yourgrau, P. (ed.), Demonstratives. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 34–49.Google Scholar

Kaplan, D. (1990b). ‘Words.’ Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society (Supplementary Volume) 64: 93–119.Google Scholar

Katz, J. J. (2001). ‘The End of Millianism: Multiple Bearers, Improper Names, and Compositional Meaning.’ Journal of Philosophy 98(3): 137–66.Google Scholar

Kleiber, G. (1981). Problèmes de Référence. Descriptions Définies et Noms Propres. Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar

Kneale, W. (1962). ‘Modality, De Dicto and De Re.’ In Nagel, E., Suppes, P., & Tarski, A. (eds.), Logic, Methodology and the Philosophy of Science. Proceedings of the 1960 International Congress. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 622–33.Google Scholar

Kripke, S. (1971). ‘Identity and Necessity.’ In Munitz, M. K. (ed.), Identity and Individuation. New York: New York University Press: 135–64.Google Scholar

Kripke, S. (1977). ‘Speaker’s Reference and Semantic Reference.’ Midwest Studies in Philosophy 2: 255–76. (Reprinted in A. P. Martinich (ed.), 1990. The Philosophy of Language. New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press, 248–66.)Google Scholar

Kripke, S. (1979). ‘A Puzzle about Belief.’ In Margalit, A, Meaning and Use. Boston/Dordrecht: Reidel, 239–83. (Reprinted in P. Ludlow (ed.), 1997. Readings in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 875–920.)Google Scholar

Kripke, S. (1980). Naming and Necessity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. (From ‘Naming and Necessity.’ In D. Davidson and G. Harman (eds.), 1972. Semantics of Natural Language. Dordrecht: D. Reidel, 253–355.)Google Scholar

Kripke, S. (1982). Wittgenstein on Rules and Private Language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Kroon, F. W. (1987). ‘Causal Descriptivism.’ Australasian Journal of Philosophy 65(1): 1–17.Google Scholar

LaPorte, J. (2013). Rigid Designation and Theoretical Identities. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Levin, M. E. (1975). ‘Kripke’s Argument Against the Identity Thesis.’ Journal of Philosophy 72(6): 149–67.Google Scholar

Lewis, D. K. (1969). Convention: A Philosophical Study. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Lewis, D. K. (1970). ‘Anselm and Actuality.’ Noûs 4(2): 175–88.Google Scholar

Lewis, D. K. (1973). Counterfactuals. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Lewis, D. K. (1979). ‘Attitudes De Dicto and De Se.’ Philosophical Review 88(4): 513–43.Google Scholar

Lewis, D. K. (1981). ‘Index, Context, and Content.’ In Kanger, S. and Ohlman, S. (eds.), Philosophy and Grammar. Dordrecht: Reidel, 79–100.Google Scholar

Lewis, D. K. (1983). ‘Individuation by Acquaintance and by Stipulation.’ Philosophical Review 92(1): 3–32. (Reprinted in D. K. Lewis, 1999. Papers in Metaphysics and Epistemology, Vol. 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 373–402.)Google Scholar

Lewis, D. K. (1984). ‘Putnam’s Paradox.’ Australasian Journal of Philosophy 62(3): 221–36. (Reprinted in D. K. Lewis, 1999. Papers in Metaphysics and Epistemology, Vol. 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 56–77.)Google Scholar

Lewis, D. K. (1986). On the Plurality of Worlds. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Lewis, D. K. (1994). ‘Reduction of Mind.’ In Guttenplan, S. (ed.), A Companion to Philosophy of Mind. Oxford: Blackwell, 412–31. (Reprinted in D. K. Lewis, 1999. Papers in Metaphysics and Epistemology, Vol. 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 291–324.)Google Scholar

Lewis, D. K. (1996). ‘Elusive Knowledge.’ Australasian Journal of Philosophy 74(4): 549–67. (Reprinted in D. K. Lewis, 1999. Papers in Metaphysics and Epistemology, Vol. 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 418–46.)Google Scholar

Lewis, D. K. (1997). ‘Naming the Colours.’ Australasian Journal of Philosophy 75(3): 325–42.Google Scholar

Linsky, L. (1963). ‘Reference and Referent.’ In Caton, C. E. (ed.), Philosophy and Ordinary Language. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar

Loar, B. (1976). ‘The Semantics of Singular Terms.’ Philosophical Studies 30(6): 353–77.Google Scholar

Loar, B. (1980). ‘Names and Descriptions: A Reply to Michael Devitt.’ Philosophical Studies 38(1): 85–89.Google Scholar

Loar, B. (1988). ‘Social Content and Psychological Content.’ In Grimm, R. & Merrill, D. (eds.), Contents of Thought. Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 99–109. (Reprinted in A. Pessin & S. Goldberg (eds.), 1996. The Twin Earth Chronicles: Twenty Years of Reflection on Hilary Putnam’s ‘The Meaning of “Meaning”’. New York: M. E. Sharpe, 180–91.)Google Scholar

Lockwood, M. J. (1971). ‘Identity and Reference.’ In Munitz, M. K. (ed.), Identity and Individuation. New York: New York University Press, 199–211.Google Scholar

Ludlow, P. (2003). ‘Externalism, Logical Form, and Linguistic Intentions.’ In Barber, A. (ed.), Epistemology of Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 399–414.Google Scholar

Ludlow, P., & Martin, N. (1998). Externalism and Self-Knowledge. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar

MacKay, A. F. (1968). ‘Mr. Donnellan and Humpty Dumpty on Referring.’ Philosophical Review 77(2): 197–202.Google Scholar

Matushansky, O. (2008). ‘On the Linguistic Complexity of Proper Names.’ Linguistics and Philosophy 31(5): 573–627.Google Scholar

McDowell, J. (1977). ‘On the Sense and Reference of a Proper Name.’ Mind 86(342): 159–85. (Reprinted in J. McDowell, 1998. Meaning, Knowledge, and Reality. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 171–98.)Google Scholar

McDowell, J. (1982). ‘Truth-Value Gaps.’ In Cohen, L. J., Pfeiffer, H., & Podewski, K. P. (eds.), Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science: Proceedings of the Sixth International Congress of Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science, Hanover, 1979. Studies in Logic, Mathematics, and Philosophy of Science. Amsterdam: North-Holland: 299–313. (Reprinted in J. McDowell, 1998. Meaning, Knowledge, and Reality. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 199–213.)Google Scholar

McDowell, J. (1984). ‘De Re Senses.’ Philosophical Quarterly 34(136): 283–94. (Reprinted in J. McDowell, 1998. Meaning, Knowledge, and Reality. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 214–27.)Google Scholar

McDowell, J. (1986). ‘Singular Thought and the Extent of Inner Space.’ In McDowell, J. & Pettit, P. (eds.), Subject, Thought, and Context. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 137–68. (Reprinted in J. McDowell, 1998. Meaning, Knowledge, and Reality. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 228–59.)Google Scholar

McDowell, J. (1991). ‘Intentionality De Re.’ In Lepore, E. & van Gulick, R. (eds.), John Searle and His Critics. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 215–25. (Reprinted in J. McDowell, 1998. Meaning, Knowledge, and Reality. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 260–74.)Google Scholar

McGinn, C. (1982). ‘Rigid Designation and Semantic Value.’ Philosophical Quarterly 32(127): 97–115.Google Scholar

McKinsey, M. (1978). ‘Names and Intentionality.’ Philosophical Review 87(2): 171–200.Google Scholar

Mellor, D. H. (1977). ‘Natural Kinds.’ British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 28(4): 299–312. (Reprinted in A. Pessin & S. Goldberg (eds.), 1996. The Twin Earth Chronicles: Twenty Years of Reflection on Hilary Putnam’s ‘The Meaning of “Meaning”’. New York: M. E. Sharpe, 81–8.)Google Scholar

Michael, M. (1998). ‘Tichy on Kripke on A Posteriori Necessities.’ Philosophical Studies 92(1): 113–26.Google Scholar

Mill, J. S. (1843). A System of Logic, Ratiocinative and Inductive: Being a Connected View of the Principles of Evidence and the Methods of Scientific Investigation (New York: Harper & Brothers, Publishers, 1882).Google Scholar

Millikan, R. G. (1984). Language, Thought and Other Biological Objects. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Millikan, R. (1994). White Queen Psychology and Other Essays for Alice. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Millikan, R. G. (2000). On Clear and Confused Ideas: An Essay about Substance Concepts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Millikan, R. G. (2004). Varieties of Meaning: The 2002 Jean Nicod Lectures. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar

Millikan, R. G. (2005). Language: A Biological Model. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

Napoli, E. (1997). ‘Names, Indexicals, and Identity Statements.’ In Künne, W., Newen, A., & Anduschus, M. (eds.), Direct Reference, Indexicality, and Propositional Attitudes. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, 185–211.Google Scholar

Neale, S. (1990). Descriptions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Nuccetelli, S. (2003). New Essays on Semantic Externalism and Self-Knowledge. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Pagin, P., & Glüer, K. (2006). ‘Proper Names and Relational Modality.’ Linguistics and Philosophy 29(5): 507–35.Google Scholar

Peacocke, C. (1975). ‘Proper Names, Reference, and Rigid Designation.’ In Blackburn, S. (ed.), Meaning, Reference and Necessity. London/New York/Melbourne: Cambridge University Press, 109–32.Google Scholar

Peacocke, C. (1981). ‘Demonstrative Thought and Psychological Explanation.’ Synthese 49(2): 187–217.Google Scholar

Peacocke, C. (1992). A Study of Concepts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Perry, J. (1977). ‘Frege on Demonstratives.’ Philosophical Review 86(4): 474–97.Google Scholar

Perry, J. (1979). ‘The Problem of the Essential Indexical.’ Noûs 13: 3–21.Google Scholar

Perry, J. (1990). ‘Individuals in Informational and Intentional Content.’ In Villanueva, E. (ed.), Information, Semantics and Epistemology. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 172–189. (Reprinted in J. Perry, 2000a. The Problem of the Essential Indexical and Other Essays. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, 233–51.)Google Scholar

Perry, J. (1997). ‘Reflexivity, Indexicality and Names.’ In Künne, W., Newen, A., & Anduschus, M. (eds.), Direct Reference, Indexicality, and Propositional Attitudes. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, 3–19.Google Scholar

Perry, J. (2000a). The Problem of the Essential Indexical and Other Essays. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar

Perry, J. (2000b). ‘What Are Indexicals?’ In Perry, J., The Problem of the Essential Indexical and Other Essays. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, 313–23.Google Scholar

Perry, J. (2001a). Knowledge, Possibility, and Consciousness. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Perry, J. (2001b). Reference and Reflexivity. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar

Perry, J. (in press). Frege’s Detour: An Essay on Meaning, Reference, and Truth. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Pessin, A., & Goldberg, S. (1996). The Twin Earth Chronicles: Twenty Years of Reflection on Hilary Putnam’s ‘The Meaning of “Meaning”’. New York: M. E. Sharpe.Google Scholar

Plantinga, A. (1974). The Nature of Necessity. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

Predelli, S. (2017). Proper Names: A Millian Account. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Putnam, H. (1970). ‘Is Semantics Possible?’ Metaphilosophy 1(3): 187–201. (Reprinted in S. P. Schwartz (ed.), 1977. Naming, Necessity and Natural Kinds. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 102–19.)Google Scholar

Putnam, H. (1973). ‘Meaning and Reference.’ Journal of Philosophy 70(19): 699–711.Google Scholar

Putnam, H. (1975). ‘The Meaning of “Meaning”’. Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science 7: 131–93.Google Scholar

Putnam, H. (1996). ‘Introduction.’ In Pessin, A. & Goldberg, S. (eds.), The Twin Earth Chronicles: Twenty Years of Reflection on Hilary Putnam’s ‘The Meaning of “Meaning”’. New York: M. E. Sharpe, xv–xii.Google Scholar

Quine, W. V. (1943). ‘Notes on Existence and Necessity.’ Journal of Philosophy 40(5): 113–27.Google Scholar

Quine, W. V. (1956). ‘Quantifiers and Propositional Attitudes.’ Journal of Philosophy 53(5): 177–87.Google Scholar

Quine, W. V. (1960). Word and Object. London: Wiley.Google Scholar

Radulescu, A. (2015). ‘The Logic of Indexicals.’ Synthese 192(6): 1839–60.Google Scholar

Recanati, F. (1993). Direct Reference: From Language to Thought. Oxford/Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Recanati, F. (2000). Oratio Obliqua, Oratio Recta: An Essay on Metarepresentation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Recanati, F. (2007). Perspectival Thought. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Recanati, F. (2010). ‘Singular Thought: In Defence of Acquaintance.’ In Jeshion, R. (ed.), New Essays on Singular Thought. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 141–90.Google Scholar

Recanati, F. (2012). Mental Files. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Recanati, F. (2016). Mental Files in Flux. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Reichenbach, H. (1947). Elements of Symbolic Logic. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar

Reimer, M., & Bezuidenhout, A. (2004). Descriptions and Beyond. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Rey-Debove, J. (1978). Le Métalangage: Étude du Discours sur le Langage. Paris: Armand Colin.Google Scholar

Russell, B. (1903). The Principles of Mathematics, Vol. I. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Russell, B. (1904). ‘Letter to Frege’ (12 December 1904). In Frege, G. (1980), Philosophical and Mathematical Correspondence. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Russell, B. (1905). ‘On Denoting.’ Mind 14: 479–93. (Reprinted in A. P. Martinich (ed.), 1990. The Philosophy of Language. New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press, 203–11.)Google Scholar

Russell, B. (1911/1981). ‘Knowledge by Acquaintance and Knowledge by Description.’ Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society (New Series) 10: 108–28. (Reprinted in his Mysticism and Logic and Other Essays. 1918. London: George Allen and Unwin Ltd, 209–32; reprinted in 1981, Totowa, NJ: Barnes & Noble Books, 152–7.)Google Scholar

Russell, B. (1918). ‘The Philosophy of Logical Atomism.’ Monist 28: 495–527.Google Scholar

Russell, B. (1919a). ‘Descriptions.’ In his Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy. London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd, 167–80. (Reprinted in A. P. Martinich (ed.), The Philosophy of Language. 1990. New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press, 212–18.)Google Scholar

Russell, B. (1919b). ‘On Propositions.’ Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society (Supplementary Volume) 2: 1–43.Google Scholar

Russell, B. (1919c). ‘The Philosophy of Logical Atomism.’ Monist 29: 32–63, 190–222, 345–80.Google Scholar

Russell, B. (1940). An Inquiry into Meaning and Truth. London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd (3rd ed. 1948.)Google Scholar

Sainsbury, R. M. (1979). Russell. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar

Sainsbury, R. M. (2002). Departing From Frege: Essays in the Philosophy of Language. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Salmon, N. (1981). Reference and Essence. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Salmon, N. (1986). Frege’s Puzzle. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Salmon, N. (1990). ‘A Millian Heir Rejects the Wages of Sinn.’ In Anderson, C. A. & Owens, J. (eds.), Propositional Attitudes: The Role of Content in Logic, Language, and Mind. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, 215–47. (Reprinted in N. Salmon, 2007. Philosophical Papers, Vol. 2, Content, Cognition, and Communication. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 3–31.)Google Scholar

Salmon, N. (1991). ‘How Not to Become a Millian Heir?’ Philosophical Studies 62(2): 165–77. (Reprinted in N. Salmon, 2007. Philosophical Papers, Vol. 2, Content, Cognition, and Communication. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 159–68.)Google Scholar

Salmon, N. (1993). ‘Relative and Absolute Apriority.’ Philosophical Studies 69(1): 83–100. (Reprinted in N. Salmon, 2007. Philosophical Papers, Vol. 2, Content, Cognition, and Communication. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 169–82.)Google Scholar

Salmon, N. (1998). ‘Nonexistence.’ Noûs 32(3): 277–319. (Reprinted in N. Salmon, 2005. Philosophical Papers, Vol. 1, Metaphysics, Mathematics, and Meaning. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 50–90.)Google Scholar

Salmon, N. (2003). ‘Are General Terms Rigid?’ Linguistics and Philosophy 28(1): 117–34. (Reprinted in N. Salmon, 2007. Philosophical Papers, Vol. 2, Content, Cognition, and Communication. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 100–12.)Google Scholar

Sawyer, S. (2010). ‘A Modified Predicate Theory of Proper Names.’ In Sawyer, S. (ed.), New Waves in Philosophy of Language. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 206–25.Google Scholar

Schiffer, S. R. (1972). Meaning. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

Schiffer, S. R. (1977). ‘Naming and Knowing.’ Midwest Studies in Philosophy 2: 28–41. (Reprinted in A. F. Peter, T. E. Uehling, & H. K. Wettstein (eds.), 1979. Contemporary Perspectives in the Philosophy of Language. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 61–74.)Google Scholar

Schiffer, S. R. (1981). ‘Indexicals and the Theory of Reference.’ Synthese (49)1: 43–100.Google Scholar

Schiffer, S. R. (1992). ‘Belief Ascription.’ Journal of Philosophy 89(10): 499–521.Google Scholar

Schiffer, S. R. (1997). ‘Descriptions, Indexicals, and Belief Reports.’ In Künne, W., Newen, A., & Anduschus, M. (eds.), Direct Reference, Indexicality, and Propositional Attitudes. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, 247–75.Google Scholar

Schwartz, S. P. (1977). Naming, Necessity, and Natural Kinds. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar

Searle, J. R. (1958). ‘Proper Names.’ Mind 67(266): 166–73.Google Scholar

Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Searle, J. R. (1983). Intentionality: An Essay in the Philosophy of Mind, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Smullyan, A. F. (1948). ‘Modality and Description.’ Journal of Symbolic Logic 13(1): 31–9.Google Scholar

Soames, S. (1987). ‘Substitutivity.’ In Thomson, J. (ed.), On Being and Saying: Essays for Richard Cartwright. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 99–132.Google Scholar

Soames, S. (1998). ‘The Modal Argument: Wide Scope and Rigidified Descriptions.’ Noûs 32(1): 1–22.Google Scholar

Soames, S. (2002). Beyond Rigidity: The Unfinished Semantic Agenda of Naming and Necessity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Soames, S. (2003). ‘Philosophical Analysis in the Twentieth Century.’ The Age of Meaning, Vol. 2. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Soames, S. (2005). Reference and Description: The Case Against Two-Dimensionalism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Soames, S. (2006). ‘Kripke, the Necessary Aposteriori, and the Two-Dimensionalist Heresy.’ In García-Carpintero, M. & Macià, J. (eds.), Two-Dimensional Semantics: Foundation and Applications. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 272–92.Google Scholar

Soames, S. (2014). ‘Epistemic Intensions.’ Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 89: 220–8.Google Scholar

Sosa, D. (2001). ‘Rigidity in the Scope of Russell’s Theory.’ Noûs 35(1): 1–38.Google Scholar

Spencer, C. (2007). ‘Is There a Problem of the Essential Indexical?’ In O’Rourke, M. & Washington, C. (eds.), Situating Semantics: Essays on the Philosophy of John Perry. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 179–97.Google Scholar

Stalnaker, R. (1970). ‘Pragmatics.’ Synthese 22: 272–89. (Reprinted in R. Stalnaker, 1999a. Context and Content. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 31–46.)Google Scholar

Stalnaker, R. (1974). ‘Pragmatic Presuppositions.’ In Munitz, M. K. & Unger, P. (eds.), Semantics in Philosophy: Studies in Contemporary Philosophy. New York: New York University Press, 197–214. (Reprinted in R. Stalnaker, 1999a. Context and Content. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 47–62.)Google Scholar

Stalnaker, R. (1976). ‘Possible Worlds.’ Noûs 10(1): 65–75.Google Scholar

Stalnaker, R. (1978). ‘Assertion.’ In Cole, P. (ed.), Syntax and Semantics 9. New York: Academic Press, 315–32. (Reprinted in R. Stalnaker, 1999a. Context and Content. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 78–95.)Google Scholar

Stalnaker, R. (1981). ‘Indexical Belief.’ Synthese 49(1): 129–151. (Reprinted in R. Stalnaker, 1999a. Context and Content. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 30–149.)Google Scholar

Stalnaker, R. (1984). Inquiry. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Stalnaker, R. (1987). ‘Semantics for Belief.’ Philosophical Topics 15(1): 177–90. (Reprinted in R. Stalnaker, 1999a. Context and Content. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 117–29.)Google Scholar

Stalnaker, R. (1988). ‘Belief Attribution and Context.’ In Grimm, R. & Merrill, D. (eds.), Contents of Thought. Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 140–56. (Reprinted in R. Stalnaker, 1999a. Context and Content. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 150–66.)Google Scholar

Stalnaker, R. (1997). ‘Reference and Necessity.’ In Wright, C. & Hale, B. (eds.), A Companion to the Philosophy of Language. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 534–54. (Reprinted in R. Stalnaker, 2003b. Ways a World Might Be: Metaphysical and Anti-Metaphysical Essays. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 165–87.)Google Scholar

Stalnaker, R. (1999a). Context and Content. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Stalnaker, R. (1999b). ‘Introduction.’ In Stalnaker, R., Context and Content. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1–28.Google Scholar

Stalnaker, R. (2001). ‘On Considering a Possible World as Actual.’ Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society (Supplementary Volume) 75: 141–56. (Reprinted in R. Stalnaker, 2003b. Ways a World Might Be: Metaphysical and Anti-Metaphysical Essays. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 188–200.)Google Scholar

Stalnaker, R. (2003a). ‘Conceptual Truth and Metaphysical Necessity.’ In Stalnaker, R., 2003b. Ways a World Might Be: Metaphysical and Anti-Metaphysical Essays. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 201–15.Google Scholar

Stalnaker, R. (2003b). Ways a World Might Be: Metaphysical and Anti-Metaphysical Essays. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

Stalnaker, R. (2004a). ‘Assertion Revisited.’ Philosophical Studies 118: 299–322. (Reprinted in M. García-Carpintero & J. Macià (eds.), 2006.Two-Dimensional Semantics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 293–309. Page references to the former.)Google Scholar

Stalnaker, R. (2004b). ‘Lewis on Intentionality.’ Australasian Journal of Philosophy 82(1): 199–212.Google Scholar

Stalnaker, R. (2007). ‘Critical Notice of Scott Soames’s Case against Two-Dimensionalism.’ Philosophical Review, 116(2): 251–66.Google Scholar

Stalnaker, R. (2008). Our Knowledge of the Internal World. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Stalnaker, R. (2011). ‘Responses to Stoljar, Weatherson and Boghossian.’ Philosophical Studies 155(3): 467–79.Google Scholar

Stalnaker, R. (2014). Context. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Stanley, J. (1997a). ‘Names and Rigid Designation.’ In Hale, R. & Wright, C. (eds.), A Companion to the Philosophy of Language. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 555–85.Google Scholar

Stanley, J. (1997b). ‘Rigidity and Content.’ In Heck, R. (ed.), Language, Thought, and Logic: Essays in Honour of Michael Dummett. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 131–56.Google Scholar

Sterelny, K. (1983). ‘Natural-Kinds Terms’. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 35: 9–20. (Reprinted in A. Pessin & S. Goldberg (eds.), 1996. The Twin Earth Chronicles: Twenty Years of Reflection on Hilary Putnam’s ‘The Meaning of “Meaning”’. New York: M. E. Sharpe, 98–114.)Google Scholar

Strawson, P. F. (1950). ‘On Referring.’ Mind (New Series) 59(235): 320–44.Google Scholar

Strawson, P. F. (1959). Individuals: An Essay in Descriptive Metaphysics. London: Methuen.Google Scholar

Sullivan, A. (2005). ‘Rigid, Designation, Direct Reference, and Modal Metaphysics.’ Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 86(4): 577–99.Google Scholar

Szabó Gendler, T., & Hawthorne, J. (2002a). Conceivability and Possibility. New York/Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

Szabó Gendler, T., & Hawthorne, J. (2002b). ‘Introduction.’ In Gendler, T. S. & Hawthorne, J. (eds.), Conceivability and Possibility. New York/Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1–70.Google Scholar

Tichy, P. (1983). ‘Kripke on Necessity A Posteriori.’ Philosophical Studies 43(2): 225–41.Google Scholar

Wettstein, H. K. (1981). ‘Demonstrative Reference and Definite Descriptions.’ Philosophical Studies 40(2): 241–57.Google Scholar

Wettstein, H. K. (1986). ‘Has Semantics Rested on a Mistake?’ Journal of Philosophy 83(4): 185–209.Google Scholar

Wettstein, H. K. (1989). ‘Turning the Tables on Frege: Or How Is It That “Hesperus Is Phosphorus” Is Trivial?’ In Tomberlin, J. (ed.), Philosophical Perspectives, 3: Philosophy of Mind and Action Theory. Detroit, MI: Ridgeview Publishing, 317–40.Google Scholar

Wittgenstein, L. (1921). ‘Logisch-Philosophische Abhandlung.’ In Annalender Naturphilosophische 14(3/4). (Translation 1922 by C. K. Ogden as Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.)Google Scholar

Wittgenstein, L. (1953). Philosophical Investigations. Translation by Anscombe, G. E. M., 1997 edition edited by Anscombe, G. E. M. & Rhees, R.. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Wong, K.-Y. (1991). ‘A Priority and Ways of Grasping a Proposition.’ Philosophical Studies 62(2): 151–64.Google Scholar

Wong, K.-Y. (1996). ‘Sentence-Relativity and the Necessary A Posteriori.’ Philosophical Studies 83(1): 53–91.Google Scholar

Wong, K.-Y. (2006). ‘Kripkean A Posteriori Necessities.’ In García-Carpintero, M. & Macià, J. (eds.), Two-Dimensional Semantics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 310–26.Google Scholar

Yablo, S. (2002). ‘Coulda, Woulda, Shoulda.’ In Gendler, T. S. & Hawthorne, J. (eds.), Conceivability and Possibility. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 441–92.Google Scholar

Yablo, S. (2006). ‘No Fool’s Cold: Notes on Illusions of Possibility.’ In García-Carpintero, M. & Macià, J. (eds.), Two-Dimensional Semantics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 327–46.Google Scholar

Yu, P. (1980). ‘The Modal Argument against Description Theories of Names.’ Analysis 40(4): 208–9.Google Scholar

Zemach, E. M. (1976). ‘Putnam’s Theory on the Reference of Substance Terms.’ Journal of Philosophy 73(5): 116–27. (Reprinted in A. Pessin & S. Goldberg (eds.), 1996. The Twin Earth Chronicles: Twenty Years of Reflection on Hilary Putnam’s ‘The Meaning of “Meaning”’. New York: M. E. Sharpe, 60–8.)Google Scholar

Book contents

Works Cited

Summary

Access options

References

Works Cited

Save book to Kindle

Save book to Dropbox

Save book to Google Drive