David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jonathan Jenkins Ichikawa
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Some twenty years ago, semanticists of natural language came to be overwhelmed by the problem of semantic analysis of belief sentences (and sentences reporting other kinds of propositional attitudes): the trouble was that sentences of the shapes X believes that A and X believes that B appeared to be able to have different truth values even in cases when A and B shared the same intension, i.e. were, from the viewpoint of intensional semantics, synonymous 1 . Thus, taking intensional semantics for granted, belief sentences appeared to violate the principle of intersubstitutivity of synonyms. The verdict of the gurus of intensional semantics was that hence intensional semantics is inadequate, or at least insufficient for the purposes of analysis of propositional attitudes; and that we need a kind of a ‘hyperintensional semantics’.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library||
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Chris Fox (2005). Foundations of Intensional Semantics. Blackwell Pub..
J. A. Burgess (1997). Supervaluations and the Propositional Attitude Constraint. Journal of Philosophical Logic 26 (1):103-119.
Laura Schroeter (2010). Two-Dimensional Semantics. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Pavel Materna (1997). Rules of Existential Quantification Into "Intensional Contexts". Studia Logica 59 (3):331-343.
Christopher Kennedy & Jason Stanley (2009). On 'Average'. Mind 118 (471):583 - 646.
Bas C. Fraassen (1979). Propositional Attitudes in Weak Pragmatics. Studia Logica 38 (4):365 - 374.
Jennifer Mather Saul (2007). Simple Sentences, Substitution, and Intuitions. Oxford University Press.
M. Dahllof (2002). Token Dependency Semantics and the Paratactic Analysis of Intensional Constructions. Journal of Semantics 19 (4):333-368.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads40 ( #118,859 of 1,932,496 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #332,988 of 1,932,496 )
How can I increase my downloads?