Substitution, simple sentences, and sex scandals

Analysis

Volumn 59, Issue 262, 1999, Pages 106-112

  Saul, Jennifer M ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 33751574186     PISSN: 00032638     EISSN: 14678284     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/1467-8284.00156     Document Type: Review

References (11)

1. Barber, A. 1998. Opacity in simple sentences. Presented to Canadian Philosophical Association, 1998.
2. Forbes, G. 1990. The indispensability of Sinn. Philosophical Review 99: 535-63.
3. Forbes, G. 1993. Reply to Marks. Philosophical Studies 69: 281-95.
4. Forbes, G. 1997. How much substitutivity? Analysis 57: 109-13.
5. Forbes, G. 1999. Enlightened semantics for simple sentences. Analysis 59: 86-91.
6. Moore, J. 1998. Saving Substitutivity. Analysis 59: 91-105.
7. Ostertag, G. 1998. The new Frege Puzzle. Presented to APA Pacific Division, 1998.
8. Saul, J. 1997b. Reply to Forbes. Analysis 57: 114-18.
9. Salmon, N. 1986. Frege's Puzzle. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
10. Soames, S. 1988. Direct reference, propositional attitudes, and semantic content. In N. Salmon and S. Soames, eds, Propositions and Attitudes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
11. Soames, S. 1995. Beyond singular propositions? Canadian Journal of Philosophy 1995: 515-50.