Graduate studies at Western
Mind and Language 13 (4):617–621 (1998)
|Abstract||We begin our discussion of Richard by comparing his and our aims. Richard argues for and begins to develop an account of a connection between the semantic content of (an utterance of) a sentence and correct indirect reports of it. He submits that by doing so he refutes us, but that's just not so. We never challenged the existence of every such connection. Surely there is some connection (probably many). Our paper attempts to show that one alleged connection does not obtain. We articulated two central goals, one specific (1), and one more general (2)|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Herman Cappelen & Ernie Lepore (1998). Reply to Tsohatzidis. Mind 107 (427):665-666.
Steven A. Gross (2006). Can One Sincerely Say What One Doesn't Believe? Mind and Language 21 (1):11-20.
Kent Bach (1992). Intentions and Demonstrations. Analysis 52 (3):140--146.
Herman Cappelen & John Hawthorne (2011). Reply to Lasersohn, MacFarlane, and Richard. [REVIEW] Philosophical Studies 156 (3):417-419.
Marga Reimer (1998). What is Meant by 'What is Said'? A Reply to Cappelen and Lepore. Mind and Language 13 (4):598–604.
Herman Cappelen & Ernie Lepore (1997). On an Alleged Connection Between Indirect Speech and the Theory of Meaning. Mind and Language 12 (3&4):278–296.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads7 ( #142,372 of 739,305 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #61,243 of 739,305 )
How can I increase my downloads?