An empirically-informed cognitive theory of propositions

References

• Brogaard, B.2006. “The ‘Gray's Elegy’ Argument, and the Prospects for the Theory of Denoting Concepts.” Synthese152: 47–79.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brogaard, B.2012. Transient Truths: An Essay in the Metaphysics of Propositions. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Brogaard, B., and J.Salerno. 2013. “Remarks on Counterpossibles.” Synthese190 (4): 639–660.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dummett, M.1991. The Logical Basis of Metaphysics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Forbes, G.2003. “Verbs of creation and depiction: More events in the semantics of English.”, Manuscript.
   Google Scholar
• Forbes, G.2013. “Intensional Transitive Verbs.” In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, edited by E. N.Zalta, Available at < http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2013/entries/intensional-trans-verbs/>. (Fall 2013 Edition).
   Google Scholar
• Frege, G.1892a. “Uber Sinn and Bedeutung.” Zeitschrift fur Philosophie und Philosophische Kritik100: 25–50.
   Google Scholar
• Frege, G.1892b. “On Concept and Object.” Vierteljahrsschrift fur wissenschaftliche Philosophie16: 192–205.
   Google Scholar
• Frege, G.1918. “Der Gedanke.” Beitrage zur Philosophie des deutschen Idealismus, 1. Translated by A Quinton and M. Quinton as “The Thought”. Mind 1956 (65): 289–311.
   Google Scholar
• King, J. C.2003. “Tense, Modality, and Semantic Values.” Philosophical Perspectives17: 195–246.
   Google Scholar
• Kripke, S.1980. Naming and Necessity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lewis, D.1979. “Attitudes De Dicto and De Se.” The Philosophical Review88: 513–543.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lewis, D.1980. “Index, context and content.” In Papers on Philosophical Logic, 199821–44. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Machery, E., Mallon, R., Nichols, S., & Stich, SP.2004. “Semantics, cross-cultural style.” Cognition92: B1–B12.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martí, G.2009. “Against semantic multi-culturalism.” Analysis69: 42–48.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Perry, J.1979. “The Problem of the Essential Indexical.” Noûs13 (1): 3–21.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Russell, B.1903. The Principles of Mathematics. New York: Norton.
   Google Scholar
• Russell, B.1905. “On Denoting.” Mind14: 479–493.
   Google Scholar
• Russell, B.1983-present. Collected Papers, The Bertrand Russell Editorial Project.
   Google Scholar
• Salmon, N.1986. Frege's Puzzle. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Salmon, N.1989. “Tense and Singular Propositions.” In Themes From Kaplan, edited by J.Almog, J.Perry, and H.Wettstein, 331–392. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Soames, S.2010. What is Meaning?Princeton: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Soames, S.2012. “Propositions.” In Routledge Companion to the Philosophy of Language, edited by D.Graff Fara, and G.Russell, 209–220. Routledge: New York.
   Google Scholar
• Soames, S.2013a. “Why the Traditional Conceptions of Propositions can't be Correct.” In New Thinking about Propositions, edited by J.King, S.Soames, and J.Speaks. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Soames, S.2013b. “A Cognitive Theory of Propositions.” In New Thinking about Propositions, edited by J.King, S.Soames, and J.Speaks. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Soames, S.2013c. “Clarifying and Improving the Cognitive Theory to Meet its Explanatory Burden.” In New Thinking about Propositions, edited by J.King, S.Soames, and J.Speaks. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Soames, S.2013d. “For Want of Cognitively Defined Propositions.” In To appear in Act Based Conceptions of Propositional Content: Historical and Contemporary Perspectives, edited by MoltmannArapinis, and Textor.
   Google Scholar
• Stalnaker, R.1970. “Pragmatics.” Synthese22 (1–2): 272–289.
   Google Scholar
• Stanley, J.1997a. “Names and Rigid Designation.” In A Companion to the Philosophy of Language, edited by B.Hale, and C.Wright, 555–585. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Stanley, J. 1997b. “Rigidity and Content.” In Logic, Language and Reality: Essays in Honor of Michael Dummett, edited by R.Heck, 131–156. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wasow, T., and J.Arnold. 2005. “Intuitions in Linguistic Argumentation.” Lingua115: 1481–1496.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Woodbury, R.2011. Behavioral and Neural Correlates of Deep and Surface Anaphora, Doctoral Dissertation, Harvard University–MIT Division of Health Sciences and Technology.
   Google Scholar