An argument against Fregean that-clause semantics

Philosophical Studies 138 (3):335 - 347 (2008)
I develop a problem for the Fregean Reference Shift analysis of that-clause reference. The problem is discussed by Stephen Schiffer in his recent book The Things We Mean (2003). Either the defender of the Fregean Reference Shift analysis must count certain counterintuitive inferences as valid, or else he must reject a plausible Exportation rule. I consider several responses. I find that the best response relies on a Kaplan-inspired analysis of quantified belief reports. But I argue that this response faces some serious problems.
Keywords Frege  Belief reports  Quantification
Categories (categorize this paper)
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Revision history Request removal from index
Download options
PhilPapers Archive

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy on self-archival     Papers currently archived: 24,470
External links
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
David Kaplan (1968). Quantifying In. Synthese 19 (1-2):178-214.
John Perry (1986). Thought Without Representation. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 60 (1):137-151.

View all 12 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA
Michael Hicks (2010). A Note on Pretense and Co-Reference. Philosophical Studies 149 (3):395 - 400.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Monthly downloads

Added to index


Total downloads

61 ( #80,091 of 1,925,550 )

Recent downloads (6 months)

5 ( #187,179 of 1,925,550 )

How can I increase my downloads?

My notes
Sign in to use this feature

Start a new thread
There  are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.