Abel, G. (ed.) (2006). Kreativität. Hamburg: Felix Meiner Verlag.Google Scholar

Adams, E. (2001). Threat displays in animal communication: handicaps, reputations, and commitments. In Nesse, R. (ed.), Evolution and the Capacity for Commitment, pp. 99–119. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar

Alston, W. P. (1997). Searle on perception. Read at the mini-conference on the philosophy of John Searle held at the University of Notre Dame in April 1997.

Alston, W. P.(2000). Illocutionary Acts and Sentence Meaning. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar

Armstrong, D. M. (1991). Intentionality, perception and causality: reflections on John Searle's Intentionality. In Lepore, E. and Gulick, R. (eds.), John Searle and his Critics, pp. 149–58. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Asher, N. (1993). Reference to Abstract Objects in Discourse. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Asher, N. and Bonevac, D. (2005). Free choice permission is strong permission. Synthese, 145, 303–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Asher, N. and Lascarides, A. (2003). Logics of Conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Asher, N. and McCready, E. (2007). “Might”, “would” and a compositional account of counterfactuals. Journal of Semantics, 24, 93–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Asher, N. and Reese, B. (2005). Negative bias in polar questions. In Maier, E., Bary, C., and Huitink, J. (eds.), Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 9, pp. 30–43. Nijmegen: Nijmegen Centre of Semantics.Google Scholar

Asher, N. and Wang, L. (2003). Ambiguity and anaphora with plurals in discourse. In Young, R. B. and Zhou, Y. (eds.), Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory 13. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Linguistics Circle Publications.Google Scholar

Austin, J. L. (1961). How to Do Things with Words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Bach, K. (1978). A representational theory of action. Philosophical Studies, 34, 361–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bach, K.(1981). What's in a name. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 59, 371–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bach, K.(1982). De re belief and methodological solipsism. In Woodfield, A. (ed.), Thought and Object, pp. 121–51. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Bach, K.(1994a). Thought and Reference, pbk edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bach, K.(1994b). Semantic slack: what is said and more. In Tsohatzidis, S. L. (ed.), Foundations of Speech Act Theory: Philosophical and Linguistic Perspectives, pp. 267–91. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Barker, S. J. (2004). Renewing Meaning: A Speech-Act Theoretic Approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Barwise, J. and Perry, J. (1983). Situations and Attitudes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Belnap, N., Horty, J., and Xu, M. (1995). The deliberative Stit: a study of action, omission, ability and obligation. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 24, 583–644.Google Scholar

Blackburn, S. (1990). Wittgenstein's irrealism. In Brandl, L. and Haller, R. (eds.), Wittgenstein: Eine Neubewertung, pp. 13–26. Vienna: Hoelder-Pickler Tempsky.Google Scholar

Bloom, P. (2002). How Children Learn the Meanings of Words. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Brandom, R. B. (1983). Asserting. Noûs, 17, 637–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Brandom, R. B.(1994). Making It Explicit: Reasoning, Representing and Discursive Commitment. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Brentano, F. ([1874] 1973). Psychology from an Empirical Standpoint, trans. A. C. Rancurello, D. B. Terrell, and L. L. McAlister, ed. McAlister, L. L.. New York: Humanities Press.Google Scholar

Burge, T. (1977). De re belief. Journal of Philosophy, 74, 338–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Burge, T.(1991). Vision and intentional content. In Lepore, E. and Gulick, R. (eds.), John Searle and his Critics, pp. 195–213. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Cavell, S. (1990). Conditions Handsome and Unhandsome: The Constitution of Emersonian Perfectionism. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Clark, H. and Gerrig, R. (1984). On the pretense theory of irony. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 113, 121–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Cocchiarella, N. B. (1984). Philosophical perspectives on quantification in tense and modal logic. In Gabbay, D. and Guenthner, F. (eds.), Handbook of Philosophical Logic, vol. ii, pp. 309–53. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Darwin, C. ([1872] 1998). The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals, ed. Ekman, P.. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Davidson, D. (1975). Thought and talk. In Guttenplan, S. (ed.), Mind and Language, pp. 7–23. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

Davidson, D.(1984). Inquiries into Truth and Interpretation. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

Davis, W. A. (2003). Meaning, Expression, and Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Davis, W. A.(2005). Nondescriptive Meaning and Reference. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Devitt, M. (1974). Singular terms. Journal of Philosophy, 71, 183–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

Devitt, M.(1990). Meanings just ain't in the head. In Boolos, G. (ed.), Meaning and Method: Essays in Honour of Hilary Putnam, pp. 79–104. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Devitt, M. and Sterelny, K. (1987). Language and Reality: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Donnellan, K. (1972). Proper names and identifying descriptions. In Harman, G. and Davidson, D. (eds.), Semantics of Natural Language, pp. 356–79. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar

Dummett, M. (1963). Realism. Read at Oxford University Philosophical Society in March 1963. First published in Dummett, M., Truth and Other Enigmas, London: Duckworth, 1978, pp. 145–65.Google Scholar

Dummett, M.(1976). What is a theory of meaning? (ii). In Evans, G. and McDowell, J. (eds.), Truth and Meaning: Essays in Semantics, pp. 67–137. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

Evans, G. (1973). The causal theory of names. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Supplementary Volume, 47, 187–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

Fernandez, J. (2006). The intentionality of memory. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 84, 39–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fitch, W. T. (2005). The evolution of language: a comparative review. Biology and Philosophy, 20, 193–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fodor, J. A. (1975). The Language of Thought. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell.Google Scholar

Fodor, J. A.(1981). Representations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

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

Forguson, L. W. (1973). Locutionary and illocutionary acts. In Berlin, I.et al., Essays on J. L. Austin, pp. 160–85. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

Frege, G. (1879). Begriffsschrift, eine der arithmetischen nachgebildete Formelsprache des reinen Denkens. Halle: L. Nebert.Google Scholar

Frege, G.(1918). Der Gedanke, eine logische Untersuchung. Beiträge zur Philosophie des deutschen Idealismus 1, 58–77.Google Scholar

Gärdenfors, P. (2000). Conceptual Spaces: The Geometry of Thought. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Gauker, C. (1990). How to learn a language like a chimpanzee. Philosophical Psychology, 3, 31–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gauker, C.(1991). If children thought like adults. Philosophical Psychology, 4, 139–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gauker, C.(1994a). Review of C. R. Gallistel (ed.), Animal Cognition. Philosophical Psychology, 7, 515–19.

Gauker, C.(1994b). Thinking Out Loud: An Essay on the Relation between Thought and Language. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gauker, C.(2003). Words without Meaning. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Gauker, C.(2005a). On the evidence for prelinguistic concepts. Theoria (Spain), 54, 287–97.Google Scholar

Gauker, C.(2005b). Conditionals in Context. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Geach, P. T. (1965). Assertion. Philosophical Review, 74, 449–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Geach, P. T.(1976). Saying and showing in Frege and Wittgenstein. Acta Philosophica Fennica, 28, 54–70.Google Scholar

Geach, P. T.(1980). Some problems about the sense and reference of proper names. Canadian Journal of Philosophy Supplement, 6, 83–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gillies, A. (2004). Epistemic conditionals and conditional epistemics. Noûs, 38, 585–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ginzburg, J. (1995). Resolving questions, i. Linguistics and Philosophy, 18, 459–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Goldman, A. I. (1970). A Theory of Human Action. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Goodale, M. and Milner, D. (1995). The Visual Brain in Action. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Goodale, M. and Milner, D.(2004). Sight Unseen: An Exploration of Conscious and Unconscious Vision. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Green, M. (1999a). Moore's many paradoxes. Philosophical Papers, 28, 97–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Green, M.(1999b). Illocutions, implicata, and what a conversation requires. Pragmatics and Cognition, 7, 65–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Green, M.(2000a). The status of supposition. Noûs, 34, 376–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Green, M.(2000b). Illocutionary force and semantic content. Linguistics and Philosophy, 23, 435–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Green, M.(2003). Grice's frown: on meaning and expression. In Meggle, G. and Plunze, C. (eds.), Saying, Meaning, Implicating, pp. 200–19. Leipzig: University of Leipzig Press.Google Scholar

Green, M.(2007). Moorean absurdity and showing what's within. In Green, M. and Williams, J. (eds.), Moore's Paradox: New Essays on Belief, Rationality and the First Person, pp. 189–214. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Green, M.(forthcoming a). Self-Expression. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRef

Green, M.(forthcoming b). Speech acts. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Grice, H. P. (1957). Meaning. Philosophical Review, 66, 377–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Grice, H. P.(1968). Utterer's meaning, sentence-meaning and word-meaning. Foundations of Language, 4, 225–42.Google Scholar

Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In Cole, P. and Morgan, J. L. (eds.), Syntax and Semantics, 3: Speech Acts, pp. 41–58. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Groenendijk, J. (1999). The logic of interrogation: classical version. In Matthews, T. and Strolovitch, D. (eds.), Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory 9, pp. 109–26. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Linguistics Circle Publications.Google Scholar

Groenendijk, J. and Stokhof, M. (1991). Dynamic predicate logic. Linguistics and Philosophy, 14, 39–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hamblin, C. (1973). Questions in Montague English. Foundations of Language, 10, 41–53.Google Scholar

Hamblin, C.(1987). Imperatives. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Han, C. (2000). The Structure and Interpretation of Imperatives: Mood and Force in Universal Grammar. New York: Garland.Google Scholar

Harel, D. (1984). Dynamic logic. In Gabbay, D. and Guenthner, F. (eds.), Handbook of Philosophical Logic, vol. ii, pp. 497–604. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Heal, J. (1977). Insincerity and commands. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 77, 183–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Higginbotham, J. (1995). Tensed thoughts. Mind and Language, 10, 226–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Higginbotham, J.(1996). The semantics of questions. In Lappin, S. (ed.), The Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory, pp. 361–84. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Higginbotham, J.(2003). Remembering, imagining, and the first person. In Barber, A. (ed.), Epistemology of Language, pp. 496–533. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Hoerl, C. (2001). The phenomenology of episodic recall. In Hoerl, C. and McCormack, T. (eds.), Time and Memory, pp. 315–35. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Horwich, P. (1998). Meaning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

James, W. (1890). Principles of Psychology, vol. i. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar

Johnson-Laird, P. (1991). What is communication? In Mellor, D. H. (ed.), Ways of Communicating, pp. 1–13. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Kaplan, D. (1978). Dthat. In Cole, P. (ed.), Syntax and Semantics, 9: Pragmatics, pp. 221–53. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Kaplan, D.(1989). Demonstratives: an essay on the semantics, logic, metaphysics and epistemology of demonstratives and other indexicals. In Almog, J., Perry, J., and Wettstein, H. (eds.), Themes from Kaplan, pp. 481–563. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Kölbel, M. (ms). Literal force: a defense of conventional assertion. University of Birmingham.

Korta, K. and Perry, J. (2006). Three demonstrations and a funeral. Mind and Language, 21, 166–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Krifka, M. (2001). Quantifying into question acts. Natural Language Semantics, 9, 1–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Krifka, M.(2002). Embedded speech acts. Paper read at In the Mood, a conference on mood and modality, Wolfgang Goethe University, Frankfurt.

Kripke, S. (1972). Naming and necessity. In Harman, G. and Davidson, D. (eds.), Semantics of Natural Language, pp. 253–355, 763–9. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar

Kripke, S.(1977). Speaker reference and semantic reference. Midwest Studies in Philosophy, 2, 255–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

Kusch, M. (2006). A Sceptical Guide to Meaning and Rules: Defending Kripke's Wittgenstein. Chesham: Acumen.Google Scholar

Levinson, S. C. (1997). From outer to inner space: linguistic categories and non-linguistic thinking. In Nuyts, J. and Pederson, E. (eds.), Language and Conceptualization, pp. 13–45. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lewis, D. (1972). General semantics. In Harman, G. and Davidson, D. (eds.), Semantics of Natural Language, pp. 169–218. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar

Lewis, D.(1979). Scorekeeping in a language game. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 8, 339–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lewis, D.(1980). Index, context, and content. In Kanger, S. and Öhman, S. (eds.), Philosophy and Grammar, pp. 79–100. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar

Loar, B. (1985). Review of S. Kripke, Wittgenstein on Rules and Private Language. Noûs, 19, 273–80.Google Scholar

Malcolm, N. (1942). Moore and ordinary language. In Schilpp, P. A. (ed.), The Philosophy of G. E. Moore, pp. 345–68. Evanston and Chicago, IL: Northwestern University Press.

Margolis, E. and Laurence, S. (1999). Concepts and cognitive science. In Margolis, E. and Laurence, S. (eds.), Concepts: Core Readings, pp. 3–81. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Martin, M. (2001). Out of the past: episodic recall as retained acquaintance. In Hoerl, C. and McCormack, T. (eds.), Time and Memory, pp. 257–84. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Mastop, R. (2005). What Can You Do? PhD Dissertation, University of Amsterdam.

Smith, Maynard J. and Harper, D. (2004). Animal Signals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

McDowell, J. (1984a). De re senses. In Wright, C. (ed.), Frege: Tradition and Influence, pp. 98–109. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

McDowell, J.(1984b). Wittgenstein on following a rule. Synthese, 58, 325–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

McDowell, J.(1991). Intentionality de re. In Lepore, E. and Gulick, R. (eds.), John Searle and His Critics, pp. 215–25. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

McDowell, J.(1994). Mind and World. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

McDowell, J.(1995). The content of perceptual experience. Philosophical Quarterly, 44, 190–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Merin, A. (1992). Permission sentences stand in the way of Boolean and other lattice-theoretic semantices. Journal of Semantics, 9, 95–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mill, J. S. (1879). A System of Logic (10th edn). London: Longman, Green, and Co.Google Scholar

Moore, G. E. (1925). A defence of common sense. Reprinted in G. E. Moore, Selected Writings, ed. Baldwin, T., London: Routledge, 1993, pp. 106–33.Google Scholar

Moore, G. E.(1939). Proof of an external world. Reprinted in G. E. Moore, Selected Writings, ed. Baldwin, T., London: Routledge, 1993, pp. 147–70.Google Scholar

Murphy, G. L. (2002). The Big Book of Concepts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Pagin, P. (2004). Is assertion social?Journal of Pragmatics, 36, 833–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Perry, J. (1977). Frege on demonstratives. Philosophical Review, 89, 474–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Perry, J.(1979). The problem of the essential indexical. Noûs, 13, 3–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

Perry, J., Israel, D., and Tutiya, S. (1993). Executions, motivations and accomplishments. Philosophical Review, 102, 515–40.Google Scholar

Petrie, M., Halliday, T. R., and Sanders, C. (1991). Peahens prefer males with elaborate trains. Animal Behaviour, 41, 323–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Pettit, P. (1990). The reality of rule-following. Mind, 99, 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Pinker, S. (1994). The Language Instinct. New York: W. Morrow and Co.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Plantinga, A. (1978). The Boethian compromise. American Philosophical Quarterly, 15, 129–38.Google Scholar

Poole, J. H. (1989). Announcing intent: the aggressive state of musth in African elephants. Animal Behaviour, 37, 140–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Portner, P. (2004). The semantics of imperatives within a theory of clause types. In Young, R. B. (ed.), Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory 14. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Linguistics Circle Publications.Google Scholar

Prior, A. N. (1963). Thank goodness that's over. Philosophy, 34, 12–17. Reprinted in A. Prior, Papers in Logic and Ethics, London: Duckworth, 1976, pp. 78–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Prior, A. N.(1967). Past, Present and Future. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Prior, A. N.(1968). Papers on Time and Tense. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

Prior, A. N.(1977), with K. Fine. Worlds, Times and Selves. London: Duckworth.Google Scholar

Putnam, H. (1962). It ain't necessarily so. Journal of Philosophy, 59, 658–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Putnam, H.(1973). Meaning and reference. Journal of Philosophy, 70, 699–711.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Putnam, H.(1981). Reason, Truth, and History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Pylyshyn, Z. (2002). Visual indexes, preconceptual objects, and situated vision. In Scholl, B. (ed.), Objects and Attention, pp. 127–58. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Pylyshyn, Z.(2003). Seeing and Visualizing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Pylyshyn, Z. and Storm, R. (1988). Tracking multiple independent targets: evidence for a parallel tracking mechanism. Spatial Vision, 3, 179–97.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Recanati, F. (1981). Les énoncés performatifs. Paris: Éditions de Minuit.Google Scholar

Recanati, F.(1987). Meaning and Force. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Recanati, F.(1996). Domains of discourse. Linguistics and Philosophy, 19, 445–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Recanati, F.(1997). The dynamics of situations. European Review of Philosophy, 2, 41–75.Google Scholar

Recanati, F.(1999). Situations and the structure of content. In Murasugi, K. and Stainton, R. (eds.), Philosophy and Linguistics, pp. 113–65. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar

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

Recanati, F.(forthcoming). Perspectival Thought : A Plea for (Moderate) Relativism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Reese, B. (2006). Negative polar interrogatives and bias. In Washio, T., Sakurai, A., Nakajima, K., Takeda, H., Tojo, S., and Yokoo, M. (eds.), New Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence: Joint JSAI 2005 Workshop Post-Proceedings, pp. 85–92. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Reichert, S. (1984). Games spiders play III: cues underlying context-associated changes in agonistic behaviour. Animal Behaviour, 32, 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Russell, B. ([1918] 1985). The Philosophy of Logical Atomism, ed. Pears, D.. La Salle, IL: Open Court.Google Scholar

Searle, J. R. (1958). Proper names. Mind, 67, 166–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Searle, J. R.(1967). Proper names and descriptions. In Edwards, P. (ed.), Encyclopedia of Philosophy, vol. vi, pp. 487–91. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar

Searle, J. R.(1968). Austin on locutionary and illocutionary acts. Philosophical Review, 77, 405–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

Searle, J. R.(1975a). A taxonomy of illocutionary acts. In Gunderson, K. (ed.), Language, Mind and Knowledge, pp. 344–69. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar

Searle, J. R.(1975b). Indirect speech acts. In Morgan, J. L. and Cole, P. (eds.), Syntax and Semantics, 3: Speech Acts, pp. 59–82. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Searle, J. R.(1979). Expression and Meaning: Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Searle, J. R.(1980a). Minds, brains, and programs. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3, 417–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Searle, J. R.(1980b). The background of meaning. In Searle, J., Kiefer, F., and Bierwisch, M. (eds.), Speech Act Theory and Pragmatics, pp. 221–32. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

Searle, J. R.(1989). How performatives work. Linguistics and Philosophy, 12, 535–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Searle, J. R.(1991a). Perception and the satisfactions of intentionality. In Lepore, E. and Gulick, R. (eds.), John Searle and his Critics, pp. 181–92. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Searle, J. R.(1991b). Reference and intentionality. In Lepore, E. and Gulick, R. (eds.), John Searle and his Critics, pp. 227–41. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Searle, J. R.(1992). The Rediscovery of the Mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Searle, J. R.(1994). Intentionality (1). In Guttenplan, S. (ed.), A Companion to the Philosophy of Mind, pp. 394–86. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Searle, J. R.(1995). The Construction of Social Reality. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar

Searle, J. R.(1998). Mind, Language and Society: Philosophy in the Real World. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar

Searle, J. R.(2001). Rationality in Action. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Searle, J. R.(2002). Consciousness and Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Searle, J. R.(2004). Mind: A Brief Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Searle, J. R. and Vanderveken, D. (1985). Foundations of Illocutionary Logic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

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

Soteriou, M. (2000). The particularity of visual perception. European Journal of Philosophy, 8, 173–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sperber, D. (1982). Comments on Clark and Carlson's paper. In Smith, N. (ed.), Mutual Knowledge, pp. 46–51. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. (1986). Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Stalnaker, R. (1972). Pragmatics. In Harman, G. and Davidson, D. (eds.), Semantics of Natural Language, pp. 380–97. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar

Stalnaker, R.(1973). Presuppositions. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 2, 447–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Stalnaker, R.(1974). Pragmatic presuppositions. In Munitz, M. and Unger, P. (eds.), Semantics and Philosophy, pp. 197–13. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar

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

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

Stalnaker, R.(2006). Saying and meaning, cheap talk and credibility. In Benz, A., Jager, C., and Rooij, R. (eds.), Game Theory and Pragmatics, pp. 83–100. London: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Stampe, D. (1975). Show and tell. In Freed, B., Marras, A., and Maynard, P. (eds.), Forms of Representation, pp. 221–45. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar

Strawson, P. F. (1950). On referring. Mind, 59, 320–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

Strawson, P. F.(1973). Austin and “locutionary meaning.” In Berlin, I.et al., Essays on J. L. Austin, pp. 46–68. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

Thomason, R. (1990). Accommodation, meaning and implicature: interdisciplinary foundations for pragmatics. In Cohen, P. R., Morgan, J., and Pollock, M. E. (eds.), Intentions in Communication, pp. 325–64. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Txurruka, I. (2003). The natural language conjunction “and.” Linguistics and Philosophy, 26, 255–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Valberg, J. J. (1992). The Puzzle of Experience. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Van den Berg, M. (1996). Some Aspects of the Internal Structure of Discourse: The Dynamics of Nominal Anaphora. PhD Dissertation, University of Amsterdam.

Vanderveken, D. (1990). Meaning and Speech Acts, vol. i. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Vauclair, J. (1996). Animal Cognition: An Introduction to Modern Comparative Psychology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Veltman, F. (1996). Defaults in update semantics. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 25, 221–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Wiggins, D. (1980). Sameness and Substance. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

>Williams, B. (2002). Truth and Truthfulness: An Essay in Genealogy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Williams, M. (1999). Skepticism. In Greco, J. and Sosa, E. (eds.), The Blackwell Guide to Epistemology, pp. 35–69. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Williamson, T. (1996). Knowing and asserting. Philosophical Review, 105, 489–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Williamson, T.(2000). Knowledge and its Limits. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Wilson, G. M. (1994). Kripke on Wittgenstein and normativity. Midwest Studies in Philosophy, 19, 366–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Wittgenstein, L. (1922). Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar

Wittgenstein, L.(1953). Philosophical Investigations, ed. Anscombe, G. E. M. and Rhees, R., trans. G. E. M. Anscombe. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Wright, C. (1984). Kripke's account of the argument against private language. Journal of Philosophy, 71, 759–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Wright, C.(1992). Truth and Objectivity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Zahavi, Am. and Zahavi, Av. (1997). The Handicap Principle: A Missing Piece of Darwin's Puzzle. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Zimmerman, E. (2000). Free choice disjunction and epistemic possibility. Natural Language Semantics, 8, 255–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Abel, G. (ed.) (2006). Kreativität. Hamburg: Felix Meiner Verlag.Google Scholar

Adams, E. (2001). Threat displays in animal communication: handicaps, reputations, and commitments. In Nesse, R. (ed.), Evolution and the Capacity for Commitment, pp. 99–119. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar

Alston, W. P. (1997). Searle on perception. Read at the mini-conference on the philosophy of John Searle held at the University of Notre Dame in April 1997.

Alston, W. P.(2000). Illocutionary Acts and Sentence Meaning. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar

Armstrong, D. M. (1991). Intentionality, perception and causality: reflections on John Searle's Intentionality. In Lepore, E. and Gulick, R. (eds.), John Searle and his Critics, pp. 149–58. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Asher, N. (1993). Reference to Abstract Objects in Discourse. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Asher, N. and Bonevac, D. (2005). Free choice permission is strong permission. Synthese, 145, 303–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Asher, N. and Lascarides, A. (2003). Logics of Conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Asher, N. and McCready, E. (2007). “Might”, “would” and a compositional account of counterfactuals. Journal of Semantics, 24, 93–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Asher, N. and Reese, B. (2005). Negative bias in polar questions. In Maier, E., Bary, C., and Huitink, J. (eds.), Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 9, pp. 30–43. Nijmegen: Nijmegen Centre of Semantics.Google Scholar

Asher, N. and Wang, L. (2003). Ambiguity and anaphora with plurals in discourse. In Young, R. B. and Zhou, Y. (eds.), Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory 13. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Linguistics Circle Publications.Google Scholar

Austin, J. L. (1961). How to Do Things with Words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Bach, K. (1978). A representational theory of action. Philosophical Studies, 34, 361–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bach, K.(1981). What's in a name. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 59, 371–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bach, K.(1982). De re belief and methodological solipsism. In Woodfield, A. (ed.), Thought and Object, pp. 121–51. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Bach, K.(1994a). Thought and Reference, pbk edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bach, K.(1994b). Semantic slack: what is said and more. In Tsohatzidis, S. L. (ed.), Foundations of Speech Act Theory: Philosophical and Linguistic Perspectives, pp. 267–91. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Barker, S. J. (2004). Renewing Meaning: A Speech-Act Theoretic Approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Barwise, J. and Perry, J. (1983). Situations and Attitudes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Belnap, N., Horty, J., and Xu, M. (1995). The deliberative Stit: a study of action, omission, ability and obligation. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 24, 583–644.Google Scholar

Blackburn, S. (1990). Wittgenstein's irrealism. In Brandl, L. and Haller, R. (eds.), Wittgenstein: Eine Neubewertung, pp. 13–26. Vienna: Hoelder-Pickler Tempsky.Google Scholar

Bloom, P. (2002). How Children Learn the Meanings of Words. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Brandom, R. B. (1983). Asserting. Noûs, 17, 637–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Brandom, R. B.(1994). Making It Explicit: Reasoning, Representing and Discursive Commitment. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Brentano, F. ([1874] 1973). Psychology from an Empirical Standpoint, trans. A. C. Rancurello, D. B. Terrell, and L. L. McAlister, ed. McAlister, L. L.. New York: Humanities Press.Google Scholar

Burge, T. (1977). De re belief. Journal of Philosophy, 74, 338–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Burge, T.(1991). Vision and intentional content. In Lepore, E. and Gulick, R. (eds.), John Searle and his Critics, pp. 195–213. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Cavell, S. (1990). Conditions Handsome and Unhandsome: The Constitution of Emersonian Perfectionism. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Clark, H. and Gerrig, R. (1984). On the pretense theory of irony. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 113, 121–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Cocchiarella, N. B. (1984). Philosophical perspectives on quantification in tense and modal logic. In Gabbay, D. and Guenthner, F. (eds.), Handbook of Philosophical Logic, vol. ii, pp. 309–53. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Darwin, C. ([1872] 1998). The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals, ed. Ekman, P.. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Davidson, D. (1975). Thought and talk. In Guttenplan, S. (ed.), Mind and Language, pp. 7–23. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

Davidson, D.(1984). Inquiries into Truth and Interpretation. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

Davis, W. A. (2003). Meaning, Expression, and Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Davis, W. A.(2005). Nondescriptive Meaning and Reference. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Devitt, M. (1974). Singular terms. Journal of Philosophy, 71, 183–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

Devitt, M.(1990). Meanings just ain't in the head. In Boolos, G. (ed.), Meaning and Method: Essays in Honour of Hilary Putnam, pp. 79–104. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Devitt, M. and Sterelny, K. (1987). Language and Reality: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Donnellan, K. (1972). Proper names and identifying descriptions. In Harman, G. and Davidson, D. (eds.), Semantics of Natural Language, pp. 356–79. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar

Dummett, M. (1963). Realism. Read at Oxford University Philosophical Society in March 1963. First published in Dummett, M., Truth and Other Enigmas, London: Duckworth, 1978, pp. 145–65.Google Scholar

Dummett, M.(1976). What is a theory of meaning? (ii). In Evans, G. and McDowell, J. (eds.), Truth and Meaning: Essays in Semantics, pp. 67–137. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

Evans, G. (1973). The causal theory of names. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Supplementary Volume, 47, 187–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

Fernandez, J. (2006). The intentionality of memory. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 84, 39–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fitch, W. T. (2005). The evolution of language: a comparative review. Biology and Philosophy, 20, 193–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fodor, J. A. (1975). The Language of Thought. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell.Google Scholar

Fodor, J. A.(1981). Representations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

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

Forguson, L. W. (1973). Locutionary and illocutionary acts. In Berlin, I.et al., Essays on J. L. Austin, pp. 160–85. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

Frege, G. (1879). Begriffsschrift, eine der arithmetischen nachgebildete Formelsprache des reinen Denkens. Halle: L. Nebert.Google Scholar

Frege, G.(1918). Der Gedanke, eine logische Untersuchung. Beiträge zur Philosophie des deutschen Idealismus 1, 58–77.Google Scholar

Gärdenfors, P. (2000). Conceptual Spaces: The Geometry of Thought. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Gauker, C. (1990). How to learn a language like a chimpanzee. Philosophical Psychology, 3, 31–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gauker, C.(1991). If children thought like adults. Philosophical Psychology, 4, 139–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gauker, C.(1994a). Review of C. R. Gallistel (ed.), Animal Cognition. Philosophical Psychology, 7, 515–19.

Gauker, C.(1994b). Thinking Out Loud: An Essay on the Relation between Thought and Language. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gauker, C.(2003). Words without Meaning. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Gauker, C.(2005a). On the evidence for prelinguistic concepts. Theoria (Spain), 54, 287–97.Google Scholar

Gauker, C.(2005b). Conditionals in Context. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Geach, P. T. (1965). Assertion. Philosophical Review, 74, 449–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Geach, P. T.(1976). Saying and showing in Frege and Wittgenstein. Acta Philosophica Fennica, 28, 54–70.Google Scholar

Geach, P. T.(1980). Some problems about the sense and reference of proper names. Canadian Journal of Philosophy Supplement, 6, 83–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gillies, A. (2004). Epistemic conditionals and conditional epistemics. Noûs, 38, 585–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ginzburg, J. (1995). Resolving questions, i. Linguistics and Philosophy, 18, 459–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Goldman, A. I. (1970). A Theory of Human Action. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Goodale, M. and Milner, D. (1995). The Visual Brain in Action. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Goodale, M. and Milner, D.(2004). Sight Unseen: An Exploration of Conscious and Unconscious Vision. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Green, M. (1999a). Moore's many paradoxes. Philosophical Papers, 28, 97–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Green, M.(1999b). Illocutions, implicata, and what a conversation requires. Pragmatics and Cognition, 7, 65–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Green, M.(2000a). The status of supposition. Noûs, 34, 376–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Green, M.(2000b). Illocutionary force and semantic content. Linguistics and Philosophy, 23, 435–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Green, M.(2003). Grice's frown: on meaning and expression. In Meggle, G. and Plunze, C. (eds.), Saying, Meaning, Implicating, pp. 200–19. Leipzig: University of Leipzig Press.Google Scholar

Green, M.(2007). Moorean absurdity and showing what's within. In Green, M. and Williams, J. (eds.), Moore's Paradox: New Essays on Belief, Rationality and the First Person, pp. 189–214. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Green, M.(forthcoming a). Self-Expression. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRef

Green, M.(forthcoming b). Speech acts. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Grice, H. P. (1957). Meaning. Philosophical Review, 66, 377–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Grice, H. P.(1968). Utterer's meaning, sentence-meaning and word-meaning. Foundations of Language, 4, 225–42.Google Scholar

Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In Cole, P. and Morgan, J. L. (eds.), Syntax and Semantics, 3: Speech Acts, pp. 41–58. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Groenendijk, J. (1999). The logic of interrogation: classical version. In Matthews, T. and Strolovitch, D. (eds.), Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory 9, pp. 109–26. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Linguistics Circle Publications.Google Scholar

Groenendijk, J. and Stokhof, M. (1991). Dynamic predicate logic. Linguistics and Philosophy, 14, 39–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hamblin, C. (1973). Questions in Montague English. Foundations of Language, 10, 41–53.Google Scholar

Hamblin, C.(1987). Imperatives. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Han, C. (2000). The Structure and Interpretation of Imperatives: Mood and Force in Universal Grammar. New York: Garland.Google Scholar

Harel, D. (1984). Dynamic logic. In Gabbay, D. and Guenthner, F. (eds.), Handbook of Philosophical Logic, vol. ii, pp. 497–604. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Heal, J. (1977). Insincerity and commands. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 77, 183–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Higginbotham, J. (1995). Tensed thoughts. Mind and Language, 10, 226–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Higginbotham, J.(1996). The semantics of questions. In Lappin, S. (ed.), The Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory, pp. 361–84. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Higginbotham, J.(2003). Remembering, imagining, and the first person. In Barber, A. (ed.), Epistemology of Language, pp. 496–533. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Hoerl, C. (2001). The phenomenology of episodic recall. In Hoerl, C. and McCormack, T. (eds.), Time and Memory, pp. 315–35. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Horwich, P. (1998). Meaning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

James, W. (1890). Principles of Psychology, vol. i. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar

Johnson-Laird, P. (1991). What is communication? In Mellor, D. H. (ed.), Ways of Communicating, pp. 1–13. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Kaplan, D. (1978). Dthat. In Cole, P. (ed.), Syntax and Semantics, 9: Pragmatics, pp. 221–53. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Kaplan, D.(1989). Demonstratives: an essay on the semantics, logic, metaphysics and epistemology of demonstratives and other indexicals. In Almog, J., Perry, J., and Wettstein, H. (eds.), Themes from Kaplan, pp. 481–563. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Kölbel, M. (ms). Literal force: a defense of conventional assertion. University of Birmingham.

Korta, K. and Perry, J. (2006). Three demonstrations and a funeral. Mind and Language, 21, 166–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Krifka, M. (2001). Quantifying into question acts. Natural Language Semantics, 9, 1–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Krifka, M.(2002). Embedded speech acts. Paper read at In the Mood, a conference on mood and modality, Wolfgang Goethe University, Frankfurt.

Kripke, S. (1972). Naming and necessity. In Harman, G. and Davidson, D. (eds.), Semantics of Natural Language, pp. 253–355, 763–9. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar

Kripke, S.(1977). Speaker reference and semantic reference. Midwest Studies in Philosophy, 2, 255–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

Kusch, M. (2006). A Sceptical Guide to Meaning and Rules: Defending Kripke's Wittgenstein. Chesham: Acumen.Google Scholar

Levinson, S. C. (1997). From outer to inner space: linguistic categories and non-linguistic thinking. In Nuyts, J. and Pederson, E. (eds.), Language and Conceptualization, pp. 13–45. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lewis, D. (1972). General semantics. In Harman, G. and Davidson, D. (eds.), Semantics of Natural Language, pp. 169–218. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar

Lewis, D.(1979). Scorekeeping in a language game. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 8, 339–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lewis, D.(1980). Index, context, and content. In Kanger, S. and Öhman, S. (eds.), Philosophy and Grammar, pp. 79–100. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar

Loar, B. (1985). Review of S. Kripke, Wittgenstein on Rules and Private Language. Noûs, 19, 273–80.Google Scholar

Malcolm, N. (1942). Moore and ordinary language. In Schilpp, P. A. (ed.), The Philosophy of G. E. Moore, pp. 345–68. Evanston and Chicago, IL: Northwestern University Press.

Margolis, E. and Laurence, S. (1999). Concepts and cognitive science. In Margolis, E. and Laurence, S. (eds.), Concepts: Core Readings, pp. 3–81. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Martin, M. (2001). Out of the past: episodic recall as retained acquaintance. In Hoerl, C. and McCormack, T. (eds.), Time and Memory, pp. 257–84. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Mastop, R. (2005). What Can You Do? PhD Dissertation, University of Amsterdam.

Smith, Maynard J. and Harper, D. (2004). Animal Signals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

McDowell, J. (1984a). De re senses. In Wright, C. (ed.), Frege: Tradition and Influence, pp. 98–109. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

McDowell, J.(1984b). Wittgenstein on following a rule. Synthese, 58, 325–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

McDowell, J.(1991). Intentionality de re. In Lepore, E. and Gulick, R. (eds.), John Searle and His Critics, pp. 215–25. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

McDowell, J.(1994). Mind and World. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

McDowell, J.(1995). The content of perceptual experience. Philosophical Quarterly, 44, 190–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Merin, A. (1992). Permission sentences stand in the way of Boolean and other lattice-theoretic semantices. Journal of Semantics, 9, 95–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mill, J. S. (1879). A System of Logic (10th edn). London: Longman, Green, and Co.Google Scholar

Moore, G. E. (1925). A defence of common sense. Reprinted in G. E. Moore, Selected Writings, ed. Baldwin, T., London: Routledge, 1993, pp. 106–33.Google Scholar

Moore, G. E.(1939). Proof of an external world. Reprinted in G. E. Moore, Selected Writings, ed. Baldwin, T., London: Routledge, 1993, pp. 147–70.Google Scholar

Murphy, G. L. (2002). The Big Book of Concepts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Pagin, P. (2004). Is assertion social?Journal of Pragmatics, 36, 833–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Perry, J. (1977). Frege on demonstratives. Philosophical Review, 89, 474–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Perry, J.(1979). The problem of the essential indexical. Noûs, 13, 3–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

Perry, J., Israel, D., and Tutiya, S. (1993). Executions, motivations and accomplishments. Philosophical Review, 102, 515–40.Google Scholar

Petrie, M., Halliday, T. R., and Sanders, C. (1991). Peahens prefer males with elaborate trains. Animal Behaviour, 41, 323–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Pettit, P. (1990). The reality of rule-following. Mind, 99, 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Pinker, S. (1994). The Language Instinct. New York: W. Morrow and Co.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Plantinga, A. (1978). The Boethian compromise. American Philosophical Quarterly, 15, 129–38.Google Scholar

Poole, J. H. (1989). Announcing intent: the aggressive state of musth in African elephants. Animal Behaviour, 37, 140–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Portner, P. (2004). The semantics of imperatives within a theory of clause types. In Young, R. B. (ed.), Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory 14. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Linguistics Circle Publications.Google Scholar

Prior, A. N. (1963). Thank goodness that's over. Philosophy, 34, 12–17. Reprinted in A. Prior, Papers in Logic and Ethics, London: Duckworth, 1976, pp. 78–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Prior, A. N.(1967). Past, Present and Future. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Prior, A. N.(1968). Papers on Time and Tense. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

Prior, A. N.(1977), with K. Fine. Worlds, Times and Selves. London: Duckworth.Google Scholar

Putnam, H. (1962). It ain't necessarily so. Journal of Philosophy, 59, 658–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Putnam, H.(1973). Meaning and reference. Journal of Philosophy, 70, 699–711.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Putnam, H.(1981). Reason, Truth, and History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Pylyshyn, Z. (2002). Visual indexes, preconceptual objects, and situated vision. In Scholl, B. (ed.), Objects and Attention, pp. 127–58. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Pylyshyn, Z.(2003). Seeing and Visualizing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Pylyshyn, Z. and Storm, R. (1988). Tracking multiple independent targets: evidence for a parallel tracking mechanism. Spatial Vision, 3, 179–97.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Recanati, F. (1981). Les énoncés performatifs. Paris: Éditions de Minuit.Google Scholar

Recanati, F.(1987). Meaning and Force. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Recanati, F.(1996). Domains of discourse. Linguistics and Philosophy, 19, 445–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Recanati, F.(1997). The dynamics of situations. European Review of Philosophy, 2, 41–75.Google Scholar

Recanati, F.(1999). Situations and the structure of content. In Murasugi, K. and Stainton, R. (eds.), Philosophy and Linguistics, pp. 113–65. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar

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

Recanati, F.(forthcoming). Perspectival Thought : A Plea for (Moderate) Relativism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Reese, B. (2006). Negative polar interrogatives and bias. In Washio, T., Sakurai, A., Nakajima, K., Takeda, H., Tojo, S., and Yokoo, M. (eds.), New Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence: Joint JSAI 2005 Workshop Post-Proceedings, pp. 85–92. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Reichert, S. (1984). Games spiders play III: cues underlying context-associated changes in agonistic behaviour. Animal Behaviour, 32, 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Russell, B. ([1918] 1985). The Philosophy of Logical Atomism, ed. Pears, D.. La Salle, IL: Open Court.Google Scholar

Searle, J. R. (1958). Proper names. Mind, 67, 166–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Searle, J. R.(1967). Proper names and descriptions. In Edwards, P. (ed.), Encyclopedia of Philosophy, vol. vi, pp. 487–91. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar

Searle, J. R.(1968). Austin on locutionary and illocutionary acts. Philosophical Review, 77, 405–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

Searle, J. R.(1975a). A taxonomy of illocutionary acts. In Gunderson, K. (ed.), Language, Mind and Knowledge, pp. 344–69. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar

Searle, J. R.(1975b). Indirect speech acts. In Morgan, J. L. and Cole, P. (eds.), Syntax and Semantics, 3: Speech Acts, pp. 59–82. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Searle, J. R.(1979). Expression and Meaning: Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Searle, J. R.(1980a). Minds, brains, and programs. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3, 417–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Searle, J. R.(1980b). The background of meaning. In Searle, J., Kiefer, F., and Bierwisch, M. (eds.), Speech Act Theory and Pragmatics, pp. 221–32. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

Searle, J. R.(1989). How performatives work. Linguistics and Philosophy, 12, 535–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Searle, J. R.(1991a). Perception and the satisfactions of intentionality. In Lepore, E. and Gulick, R. (eds.), John Searle and his Critics, pp. 181–92. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Searle, J. R.(1991b). Reference and intentionality. In Lepore, E. and Gulick, R. (eds.), John Searle and his Critics, pp. 227–41. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Searle, J. R.(1992). The Rediscovery of the Mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Searle, J. R.(1994). Intentionality (1). In Guttenplan, S. (ed.), A Companion to the Philosophy of Mind, pp. 394–86. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Searle, J. R.(1995). The Construction of Social Reality. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar

Searle, J. R.(1998). Mind, Language and Society: Philosophy in the Real World. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar

Searle, J. R.(2001). Rationality in Action. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Searle, J. R.(2002). Consciousness and Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Searle, J. R.(2004). Mind: A Brief Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Searle, J. R. and Vanderveken, D. (1985). Foundations of Illocutionary Logic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

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

Soteriou, M. (2000). The particularity of visual perception. European Journal of Philosophy, 8, 173–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sperber, D. (1982). Comments on Clark and Carlson's paper. In Smith, N. (ed.), Mutual Knowledge, pp. 46–51. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. (1986). Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Stalnaker, R. (1972). Pragmatics. In Harman, G. and Davidson, D. (eds.), Semantics of Natural Language, pp. 380–97. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar

Stalnaker, R.(1973). Presuppositions. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 2, 447–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Stalnaker, R.(1974). Pragmatic presuppositions. In Munitz, M. and Unger, P. (eds.), Semantics and Philosophy, pp. 197–13. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar

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

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

Stalnaker, R.(2006). Saying and meaning, cheap talk and credibility. In Benz, A., Jager, C., and Rooij, R. (eds.), Game Theory and Pragmatics, pp. 83–100. London: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Stampe, D. (1975). Show and tell. In Freed, B., Marras, A., and Maynard, P. (eds.), Forms of Representation, pp. 221–45. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar

Strawson, P. F. (1950). On referring. Mind, 59, 320–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

Strawson, P. F.(1973). Austin and “locutionary meaning.” In Berlin, I.et al., Essays on J. L. Austin, pp. 46–68. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

Thomason, R. (1990). Accommodation, meaning and implicature: interdisciplinary foundations for pragmatics. In Cohen, P. R., Morgan, J., and Pollock, M. E. (eds.), Intentions in Communication, pp. 325–64. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Txurruka, I. (2003). The natural language conjunction “and.” Linguistics and Philosophy, 26, 255–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Valberg, J. J. (1992). The Puzzle of Experience. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Van den Berg, M. (1996). Some Aspects of the Internal Structure of Discourse: The Dynamics of Nominal Anaphora. PhD Dissertation, University of Amsterdam.

Vanderveken, D. (1990). Meaning and Speech Acts, vol. i. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Vauclair, J. (1996). Animal Cognition: An Introduction to Modern Comparative Psychology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Veltman, F. (1996). Defaults in update semantics. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 25, 221–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Wiggins, D. (1980). Sameness and Substance. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

>Williams, B. (2002). Truth and Truthfulness: An Essay in Genealogy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Williams, M. (1999). Skepticism. In Greco, J. and Sosa, E. (eds.), The Blackwell Guide to Epistemology, pp. 35–69. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Williamson, T. (1996). Knowing and asserting. Philosophical Review, 105, 489–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Williamson, T.(2000). Knowledge and its Limits. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Wilson, G. M. (1994). Kripke on Wittgenstein and normativity. Midwest Studies in Philosophy, 19, 366–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Wittgenstein, L. (1922). Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar

Wittgenstein, L.(1953). Philosophical Investigations, ed. Anscombe, G. E. M. and Rhees, R., trans. G. E. M. Anscombe. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Wright, C. (1984). Kripke's account of the argument against private language. Journal of Philosophy, 71, 759–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Wright, C.(1992). Truth and Objectivity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Zahavi, Am. and Zahavi, Av. (1997). The Handicap Principle: A Missing Piece of Darwin's Puzzle. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Zimmerman, E. (2000). Free choice disjunction and epistemic possibility. Natural Language Semantics, 8, 255–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar