Pure Russellians are allowed not to believe

References

• Bach, K. 1999. “The Myth of Conventional Implicature.” Linguistics and Philosophy 22 (4): 327–366.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barwise, J., and J. Perry. 1983. Situations and Attitudes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Berg, J. 1988. “The Pragmatics of Substitutivity.” Linguistics and Philosophy 11 (3): 355–370.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berg, J. 2012. Direct Belief: An Essay on the Semantics, Pragmatics, and Metaphysics of Belief. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
   Google Scholar
• Berg, J. 2017. “Replies to Davis, Everett, Jacquette, Nottelmann, and Smith.” Philosophia 45 (1): 107–124.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bezuidenhout, A. L. 1997. “The Communication of de re Thoughts.” Noûs 31 (2): 197–225.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boghossian, P. A. 1994. “The Transparency of Mental Content.” Philosophical Perspectives 8: 33–50.
   Google Scholar
• Braun, D. 1998. “Understanding Belief Reports.” Philosophical Review 107 (4): 555–595.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Breheny, R. 2008. “A new Look at the Semantics and Pragmatics of Numerically Quantified Noun Phrases.” Journal of Semantics 25 (2): 93–139.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burgess, J. P. 2005. “Translating Names.” Analysis 65 (3): 196–205.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carston, R. 1988. “Implicature, Explicature, and Truth-Theoretic Semantics.” In Mental Representations: The Interface Between Language and Reality, edited by R. Kempson, 155–181. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.
   Google Scholar
• Carston, R. 1996. “Metalinguistic Negation and Echoic use.” Journal of Pragmatics 25 (3): 309–330.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crawford, S. 2004a. “Pure Russellianism.” Philosophical Papers 33 (2): 171–202.
   Google Scholar
• Crawford, S. 2004b. “A Solution for Russellians to a Puzzle About Belief.” Analysis 64 (3): 223–229.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crimmins, M. 1992. Talking About Belief. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Davis, W. A. 2005. Nondescriptive Meaning and Reference: An Ideational Semantics. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.
   Google Scholar
• Davis, W. A. 2011. “‘Metalinguistic’ Negations, Denial, and Idioms.” Journal of Pragmatics 43 (10): 2548–2577.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davis, W. A. 2016. Irregular Negatives, Implicatures, and Idioms. Dordrecht: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Davis, W. A. 2017. “Berg’s Answer to Frege’s Puzzle.” Philosophia 45 (1): 19–34.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Everett, A. 2017. “Berg on Belief Reports.” Philosophia 45 (1): 35–47.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Foolen, A. 1991. “Metalinguistic Negation and Pragmatic Ambiguity.” Pragmatics 1 (2): 217–237.
   Google Scholar
• Frege, G. 1918/1956. “The Thought: A Logical Inquiry.” Mind; A Quarterly Review of Psychology and Philosophy 65 (259): 289–311.
   Google Scholar
• Gaskin, R. 1997. “Fregean Sense and Russellian Propositions.” Philosophical Studies 86 (2): 131–154.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Geurts, B. 1998. “The Mechanisms of Denial.” Language 74 (2): 274–307.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Green, M. S. 1998. “Direct Reference and Implicature.” Philosophical Studies 91 (1): 61–90.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grice, H. P. 1961. “The Causal Theory of Perception.” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 35: 121–152.
   Google Scholar
• Heck, R. K. 2014. “Intuition and the Substitution Argument.” Analytic Philosophy 55 (1): 1–30. (originally published under the name ‘Richard G. Heck, Jr’).
   Google Scholar
• Horn, L. R. 1989. A Natural History of Negation. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Jacob, P. 1997. “Frege's Puzzle and Belief Ascription.” In Direct Reference, Indexicality, and Propositional Attitudes, edited by W. Kunne, A. Newen, and M. Anduschus, 215–245. Stanford: CSLI.
   Google Scholar
• McKay, T. 1981. “On Proper Names in Belief Ascriptions.” Philosophical Studies 39 (3): 287–303.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McKinsey, M. 1999. “The Semantics of Belief Ascriptions.” Noûs 33 (4): 519–557.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peacocke, C. 1975. “Proper Names, Reference, and Rigid Designation.” In Meaning, Reference, and Necessity, edited by S. Blackburn, 109–132. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.
   Google Scholar
• Pitts, A. 2011. “Exploring a ‘Pragmatic Ambiguity’ of Negation.” Language 87 (2): 346–368.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Predelli, S. 1999. “Saul, Salmon, and Superman.” Analysis 59 (2): 113–116.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Predelli, S. 2001. “Art, Bart and Superman.” Analysis 61 (4): 310–313.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Predelli, S. 2013. Meaning Without Truth. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.
   Google Scholar
• Recanati, F. 1993. Direct Reference: From Language to Thought. Oxford: Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Richard, M. 1986/1987. “Attitude Ascriptions, Semantic Theory, and Pragmatic Evidence.” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 87: 243–262.
   Google Scholar
• Richard, M. 1990. Propositional Attitudes: An Essay on Thoughts and how we Ascribe Them. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.
   Google Scholar
• Richard, M. 1997. “Propositional Attitudes.” In A Companion to the Philosophy of Language, edited by B. Hale, and C. Wright, 197–226. Oxford: Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Rieber, S. 1997. “A Semiquotational Solution to Substitution Puzzles.” Philosophical Studies 86 (3): 267–301.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Russell, B. 1904/1980. “Letter to Frege, 12/12/1904.” In Gottlob Frege. Philosophical and Mathematical Correspondence, edited by G. Gottfried, H. Hermes, F. Kambartel, C. Thiel, A. Veraart, B. McGuinness, and A. Kaal, 166–170. Oxford: Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Salmon, N. 1986. Frege’s Puzzle. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Salmon, N. 1989/2007. “Illogical Belief.” Reprinted In Content, Cognition, and Communication: Philosophical Papers II, 193–223. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.
   Google Scholar
• Salmon, N. 2018. “Cognition and Recognition.” Intercultural Pragmatics 15 (2): 213–235.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saul, J. M. 1997. “Substitution and Simple Sentences.” Analysis 57 (2): 102–108.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saul, J. M. 1998. “The Pragmatics of Attitude Ascription.” Philosophical Studies 92 (3): 363–389.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schiffer, S. 1987. “The ‘Fido’-Fido Theory of Belief.” Philosophical Perspectives 1: 455–480.
   Google Scholar
• Schnieder, B. 2006. “‘By Leibniz’s Law’: Remarks on a Fallacy.” Philosophical Quarterly 56 (222): 39–54.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Soames, S. 1987. “Substitutivity.” In On Being and Saying: Essays for Richard Cartwright, edited by J. Thompson, 99–132. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Soames, S. 2002. Beyond Rigidity: The Unfinished Semantic Agenda of ‘Naming and Necessity’. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.
   Google Scholar
• Spector, B. 2013. “Bare Numerals and Scalar Implicatures.” Language and Linguistics Compass 7 (5): 273–294.
   Google Scholar
• Spencer, C. 2006. “Do Conversational Implicatures Explain Substitutivity Failures?” Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 87 (1): 126–139.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thau, M. 2002. Consciousness and Cognition. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.
   Google Scholar
• Urmson, J. O. 1968. “Criteria of Intensionality.” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 42: 107–122.
   Google Scholar