Skip to main content
Log in

Why the tuple theory of structured propositions isn't a theory of structured propositions

  • Discussion
  • Published:
Philosophia Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Almog, Joseph, 1986, “Naming Without Necessity”,Journal of Philosophy, Vol. 83, pp. 210–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Almog, J., Wettsten, H. and Perry, J. (eds.), 1989,Themes From Kaplan, Oxford U.P., Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bealer, George, 1998, “Propositions”,Mind, Vol. 107, pp. 1–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bolzano, Bernard, 1837,Wissenschaftslehre, Jan Berg (ed.), Friedrich Frommann Verlag, Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt (1987).

    Google Scholar 

  • Braun, David, 1993, “Empty Names”,Noûs, Vol. 27, No. 4, pp. 449–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cresswell, Max J., 1985,Structured Meanings, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forbes, Graeme, 1989,Languages of Possibility, Aristotelian Society Series, vol. 9, Blackwell, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Griffin, Nicholas 1993, “Terms, Relations, Complexes”, in Irvine and Wedeking (eds.),—. pp. 159–192.

    Google Scholar 

  • Irvine, A.D., Wedeking, G.A. (eds.), 1993,Russell and Analytic Philosophy, University of Toronto Press, Toronto.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacquette, Dale, 1992/93, “Wittgenstein's Critique of Propositional Attitude and Russell's Theory of Judgment”,Brentano Studien, Vol. 4, pp. 193–220.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jespersen, Bjørn, 2000, “Singular Propositions in Two-Stage Theory”, in O. Majer, (ed.)—. pp. 196–218.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan, David, 1990, “Dthat”, in P. Yourgrau (ed.), pp. 11–33. Originally appeared in P. Cole (ed.),Syntax and Semantics, Academic Press, New York (1978).

    Google Scholar 

  • —. 1989Demonstratives, Draft#2,—, in Almog et al. (eds.), pp. 481–563.

    Google Scholar 

  • King, Jeffrey C., 2001, “Structured Propositions”,Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/propositions-structured/.

  • Ludlow, Peter (ed.), 1997,Readings in the Philosophy of Language, MIT Press, Cambridge, pp. 9221–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Majer, Ondrej (ed.),Topics in Conceptual Analysis and Modeling, Filosofia, Czeck Academy of Sciences, Prague.

  • Materna, Pavel, 1998,Concepts and Objects, Acta Philosophica Fennica, Vol. 63, Societas Philosophica Fennica, Helsinki.

    Google Scholar 

  • DePauli-Schimanovich, W.et al. (eds.), 1995,The Foundational Debate, Kluwer, Dordrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Russell, Bertrand, 1903,Principles of Mathematics, Norton, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Soames, Scott, 1997, “Direct Reference, Propositional Attitudes, and Semantic Content”, in Ludlow (ed.), pp. 921–62. Originally appeared inPhilosophical Topics, Vol. 15 (1987).

  • Tichý, Pavel, 1986, “Constructions”,Philosophy of science, Vol. 53, pp. 514–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • —, 1988,The Logical Foundations of Frege's Logic, de Gruyter, Berlin, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • —, 1995, “Constructions as the Subject-Matter of Mathematics”, in W. DePauli-Schimanovichet al. (eds.), 1995, pp. 175–85.—.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yourgrau, Palle (ed.), 1990,Demonstratives: Oxford Readings in Philosophy, Oxford University Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Jespersen, B. Why the tuple theory of structured propositions isn't a theory of structured propositions. Philosophia 31, 171–183 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02380932

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02380932

Keywords

Navigation