Intensionality: I - Graeme Forbes

Proceedings of the Aristotelean Society, Supplementary Volumes

Volumn 76, Issue 1, 2002, Pages 75-99

  Forbes, Graeme ^a   Saul, Jennifer ^a  

^a TULANE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 60949174576     PISSN: 03097013     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/1467-8349.00090     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Carpenter, B. 1997. Type-Logical Semantics, Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press
2. Davidson, D. 1967. 'The Logical Form of Action Sentences', in Rescher, N. (ed.) The Logic of Decision and Action, Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press
3. den Dikken, M., R. Larson and P. Ludlow, 1996. 'Intensional 'Transitive' Verbs and Concealed Complement Clauses', Rivista di Linguistica 8, 331-348
4. also in P. Ludlow (ed.), Readings in the Philosophy of Language, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1041-1053
5. Follesdal, D. and R. Hilpinen. 1981. 'Deontic Logic: An Introduction', in R. Hilpinen (ed.) Deontic Logic: Introductory and Systematic Readings, Dordrecht: Reidel, 1-35
6. Forbes, G. 2000a. 'Intensional Transitive Verbs: The Limitations of a Clausal Analysis', unpublished ms., www.tulane.edu/forbes/preprints.html
7. Forbes, G. 2000b. 'Objectual Attitudes', Linguistics and Philosophy 23, 141-183
8. Forbes, G. 2001a. "The Logic of Intensional Transitives, Part I: Weakening and Disjunction', forthcoming
9. Forbes, G. 2001b. 'When Good "Or"s Go "And".'
10. Goodman, N. 1976. Languages of Art, Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company
11. Horn, L. 1989. The Natural History of Negation, Chicago: Chicago University Press
12. Jennings, R. E. 1994. The Genealogy of Disjunction, Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press
13. Kamp, H. 1973. 'Free Choice Permission', Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 74, 57-94
14. Kamp, H. 1979. 'Semantics versus Pragmatics', in Guenthner, F. and S. Schmidt (eds.) Formal Semantics and Pragmatics for Natural Language, Dordrecht: Reidel, 255-287
15. Larson, R. 1988. 'Scope and Comparatives', Linguistics and Philosophy 11, 1-26
16. Loewer, B. 1976. 'Counterfactuals with Disjunctive Antecedents', Journal of Philosophy 73, 531-537
17. Makinson, D. 1984. 'Stenius's Approach to Disjunctive Permission', Theoria 50, 138-147
18. Moltmann, F. 1997. 'Intensional Verbs and Quantifiers', Natural Language Semantics 5, 1-52
19. Parsons, T. 1990. Events in the Semantics of English, Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press
20. Parsons, T. 1997. 'Meaning Sensitivity and Grammatical Structure', in Dalla Chiara, M. L., K. Doets, D. Mundici and J. v. Benthem (eds.), Structures and Norms in Science, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 369-383
21. Partee, B. and M. Rooth. 1983. 'Generalized Conjunction and Type Ambiguity', in Bäuerle, R., C. Schwarze and A. v. Stechow (eds.) Meaning, Use and Interpretation of Language, Berlin: de Gruyter, 361-383
22. Peacocke, C. 1987. 'Depiction', Philosophical Review 96, 383-410
23. Quine, W. V. 1955. 'Quantifiers and Propositional Attitudes', in Linsky, L. (ed.), Reference and Modality, Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 101-111
24. Radford, A. 1988. Transformational Grammar, Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press
25. Salmon, N. 1989. 'The Logic of What Might Have Been', Philosophical Review 98, 3-34
26. Stenius, E. 1982. 'Ross's Paradox and Well-Formed Codices', Theoria 48, 49-77
27. Thomason, R. 1980. 'A Model Theory for Propositional Attitudes', Linguistics and Philosophy 4, 47-70
28. Wright, G. H. v. 1963. The Logic of Preference, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press