Bibliography
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 15 April 2021
Summary
A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Attitude Reports , pp. 213 - 232Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2021
References
Abusch, Dorit. 1997. Sequence of tense and temporal de re. Linguistics and Philosophy, 20, 1–50.Google Scholar
Abusch, Dorit. 2004. On the temporal composition of infinitives. Pages 1–34 of: Guéron, Jacqueline, and Lecarme, Jacqueline (eds.), The Syntax of Time. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Aloni, Maria. 2005. Individual concepts in modal predicate logic. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 34, 1–64.Google Scholar
Altshuler, Daniel, and Schwarzschild, Roger. 2013a. Correlating cessation with double access. Pages 43–50 of: Aloni, Maria, Franke, Michael, and Roelofsen, Floris (eds.), 19th Amsterdam Colloquium. semanticsarchive.Google Scholar
Altshuler, Daniel, and Schwarzschild, Roger. 2013b. Moment of change, cessation implicatures and simultaneous readings. Pages 45–62 of: D’Antonio, Sarah, Moroney, Mary, and Little, Carol Rose (eds.), Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 17. semanticsarchive.Google Scholar
Altshuler, Daniel, Hacquard, Valentine, Roberts, Thomas, and White, Aaron Steven. 2015. On double access, cessation and parentheticality. Pages 18–37 of: Chemla, Emmanuel, Homer, Vincent, and Winterstein, Grégoire (eds.), Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory 25.Google Scholar
Anand, Pranav. 2006. De De Se. Ph.D. dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Anand, Pranav, and Hacquard, Valentine. 2008. When the present is all in the past. Pages 209–228 of: de Saussure, Louis, Moeschler, Jacques, and Puskás, Genoveva (eds.), Recent Advances in the Syntax and Semantics of Tense, Mood and Aspect. Berlin and New York, NY: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Anand, Pranav, and Hacquard, Valentine. 2009. Epistemics with attitudes. Pages 37–54 of: Friedman, Tova, and Ito, Satoshi (eds.), Proceedings of SALT 18. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Anand, Pranav, and Hacquard, Valentine. 2013. Epistemics and attitudes. Semantics & Pragmatics, 6, 1–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anand, Pranav, and Nevins, Andrew. 2004. Shifty operators in changing contexts. Pages 20–37 of: Young, Robert B. (ed.), Proceedings of SALT 14. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Asher, Nicholas. 1987. A typology for attitude verbs and their anaphoric properties. Linguistics and Philosophy, 10, 125–197.Google Scholar
Austin, J. L. 1962. How to Do Things with Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Bach, Kent. 1997. Do belief reports report beliefs? Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 78, 215–241.Google Scholar
Baglini, Rebekah. 2015. Stative Predication and Semantic Ontology: A Cross-linguistic Study. PhD Dissertation, University of Chicago.Google Scholar
Ball, Brian. 2019. Attitudes and ascriptions in Stalnaker models. Linguistics and Philosophy, 42, 517–539.Google Scholar
Bar-Lev, Moshe E. 2015. De re tenses and trace conversion. Pages 184–203 of: Chemla, Emmanuel, Homer, Vincent, and Winterstein, Grégoire (eds.), Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory 25. eLanguage.Google Scholar
Baron, Christopher. 2016. Generalized concept generators. Pages 59–68 of: Hammerly, Christopher, and Prickett, Brandon (eds.), Proceedings of NELS 46. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform.Google Scholar
Bartsch, Renate. 1973. ‘Negative transportation’ gibt es nicht. Linguistische Berichte, 27, 1–7.Google Scholar
Barwise, Jon, and Cooper, Robin. 1981. Generalized quantifiers and natural language. Linguistics and Philosophy, 4, 159–219.Google Scholar
Barwise, Jon, and Perry, John. 1983. Situations and Attitudes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Barwise, Jon, and Perry, John. 1985. Shifting situations and shaken attitudes. Linguistics and Philosophy, 8, 399–452.Google Scholar
Bary, Corien, and Altshuler, Daniel. 2015. Double access. Pages 89–106 of: Csipak, Eva, and Zeijlstra, Hedde (eds.), Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 19. semanticsarchive.Google Scholar
Bäuerle, Rainer. 1983. Pragmatisch-semantische Aspekte der NP-Interpretation. Pages 121–131 of: Faust, Manfred, Harweg, Roland, Lehfeldt, Werner, and Wienold, Götz (eds.), Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft, Sprachtypologie und Textlinguistik: Festschrift für Peter Hartmann. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Berg, Jonathan. 1988. The pragmatics of substitutivity. Linguistics and Philosophy, 11, 355–370.Google Scholar
Berto, Francesco. 2010. Impossible worlds and propositions: Against the parity thesis. The Philosophical Quarterly, 40, 471–486.Google Scholar
Berto, Francesco. 2013. Impossible worlds. In: Zalta, Edward N. (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, winter 2013 edn. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Berto, Francesco. 2017. Impossible worlds and the logic of imagination. Erkenntnis, 82, 1277–1297.Google Scholar
Bigelow, John. 1978. Believing in semantics. Linguistics and Philosophy, 2, 101–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bjerring, Jens Christian. 2013. Impossible worlds and logical omniscience. Synthese, 190, 2505–2524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blumberg, Kyle, and Holguín, Ben. 2019. Embedded attitudes. Journal of Semantics, 36, https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffz004, 377–406.Google Scholar
Bochnak, M. Ryan. 2019. Future reference with and without future marking. Language and Linguistics Compass, 13, 1–22.Google Scholar
Bochnak, M. Ryan, Hohaus, Vera, and Mucha, Anne. 2019. Variation in tense and aspect, and the temporal interpretation of complement clauses. Journal of Semantics, 36, doi:10.1093/jos/ffz008, 407–452.Google Scholar
Bogal-Allbritten, Elizabeth. 2016. Building Meaning in Navajo. PhD Dissertation, University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight. 1968. Post-posed main phrases: An English rule for the Romance subjunctive. Canadian Journal of Linguistics, 14, 3–30.Google Scholar
Bonardi, Paolo. 2019. Manifest validity and beyond: An inquiry into the nature of coordination and the identity of guises and propositional-attitude states. Linguistics and Philosophy, 42, 475–515.Google Scholar
Bonomi, Andrea. 1995. Transparency and specificity in intensional contexts. Pages 164–185 of: Leonardi, P., and Santambrogio, M. (eds.), On Quine, New Essays. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Braddon-Mitchell, David, and Jackson, Frank. 2007. The Philosophy of Mind and Cognition: An Introduction. Milan: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
Bratman, Michael E. 1987. Intentions, Plans, and Practical Reason. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Braun, David. 2015. Desiring, desires, and desire ascriptions. Philosophical Studies, 172, 141–162.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan. 1972. Theory of Complementation in English Syntax. PhD Dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Burge, Tyler. 1978. Self-reference and translation. Pages 137–153 of: Guenthner, F., and Guenthner-Reutter, M. (eds.), Meaning and Translation. London: Duckworth.Google Scholar
Burge, Tyler. 1979. Individualism and the mental. Midwest Studies in Philosophy, 4, 73–122.Google Scholar
Büring, Daniel. 2003. To want it is to want to be there. Paper for workshop on Division of Linguistic Labor at the Château de la Bretesche near Nantes, France.Google Scholar
Cable, Seth. 2011. A new argument for lexical decomposition. Linguistic Inquiry, 42, 131–138.Google Scholar
Carnap, Rudolf. 1947. Meaning and Necessity: A Study in Semantics and Modal Logic. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Castañeda, Hector-Neir. 1966. ‘He’: A study in the logic of selfconsciousness. Ratio, 7, 130–157.Google Scholar
Castañeda, Hector-Neir. 1967. Omniscience and indexical reference. Journal of Philosophy, 64, 203–210.Google Scholar
Castañeda, Hector-Neir. 1968. On the logic of attributions of self-knowledge to others. Journal of Philosophy, 65, 439–456.Google Scholar
Charlow, Simon, and Sharvit, Yael. 2014. Bound ‘de re’ pronouns and the LFs of attitude reports. Semantics & Pragmatics, 7, 1–43.Google Scholar
Chierchia, Gennaro. 1984. Topics in the Syntax and Semantics of Infinitives and Gerunds. PhD Dissertation, University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Chierchia, Gennaro. 1989. Anaphora and attitudes de se. Pages 1–32 of: Bartsch, Renate, van Benthem, Joham, and van Emde Boas, Peter (eds.), Semantics and Contextual Expression. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam, and Lasnik, Howard. 1993. The theory of principles and parameters. Pages 506–569 of: Jacobs, Joachim, von Stechow, Arnim, Sternefeld, Wolfgang, and Vennemann, Theo (eds.), Syntax: An International Handbook of Contemporary Research. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Church, Alonzo. 1950. On Carnap’s analysis of statements of assertion and belief. Analysis, 10, 97–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Church, Alonzo. 1954. Intensional isomorphism and identity of belief. Philosophical Studies, 5, 65–73.Google Scholar
Clapp, Lenny. 2002. Davidson’s program and interpreted logical forms. Linguistics and Philosophy, 25, 261–297.Google Scholar
Clements, George N. 1975. The logophoric pronoun in Ewe: Its role in discourse. Journal of West African Languages, 10, 141–177.Google Scholar
Collins, Chris, and Postal, Paul M. 2014. Classical NEG Raising: An Essay on the Syntax of Negation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Collins, Chris, and Postal, Paul M. 2017. Interclausal NEG Raising and the scope of negation. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 2, 1–29.Google Scholar
Condoravdi, Cleo. 2002. Temporal interpretation of modals: Modals for the present and for the past. Pages 59–88 of: Beaver, David, Kaufmann, Stefan, Clark, Brady, and Casillas, Luis (eds.), The Construction of Meaning. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Condoravdi, Cleo, and Lauer, Sven. 2011. Performative verbs and performative acts. Pages 149–164 of: Reich, Ingo, Horch, Eva, and Pauly, Dennis (eds.), Sinn und Bedeutung 15. Saarbrüken: Universaar.Google Scholar
Condoravdi, Cleo, and Lauer, Sven. 2016. Anankastic conditionals are just conditionals. Semantics & Pragmatics, 9, 1–61.Google Scholar
Cooper, Robin, and Ginzburg, Jonathan. 1996. A Compositional Situation Semantics for Attitude Reports. Pages 1–15 of: Seligman, Jerry, and Westerståahl, Dag (eds.), Logic, Language and Computation. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Cresswell, Maxwell J. 1980. Quotational theories of propositional attitudes. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 9, 17–40.Google Scholar
Cresswell, Maxwell J. 1985. Structured Meanings: The Semantics of Propositional Attitudes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cresswell, Maxwell J. 1990. Entities and Indices. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
Cresswell, Maxwell J., and von Stechow, Arnim. 1982. De re belief generalized. Linguistics and Philosophy, 5, 503–535.Google Scholar
Crimmins, Mark, and Perry, John. 1989. The prince and the phone booth: Reporting puzzling beliefs. Journal of Philosophy, 86, 685–711.Google Scholar
Crnič, Luka. 2011. Getting Even. PhD Dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Crowley, Paul. 2019. Neg-Raising and Neg movement. Natural Language Semantics, 27, 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davidson, Donald. 1967. The logical form of action sentences. In: Rescher, N. (ed.), The Logic of Decision and Action. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
Dawson, Virginia, and Deal, Amy Rose. 2019. Third readings by semantic scope lowering: Prolepsis in Tiwa. Pages 329–346 of: Espinal, M. Teresa, Castroviejo, Elena, Leonetti, Manuel, McNally, Louise, and Real-Puigdollers, Cristina (eds.), Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 23. semanticsarchive.Google Scholar
Deal, Amy Rose. 2018. Compositional paths to de re. Pages 622–648 of: Maspong, Sireemas, Stefánsdóttir, Brynhildur, Blake, Katherine, and Davis, Forrest (eds.), Proceedings of SALT 28. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.Google Scholar
den Dikken, Marcel, Larson, Richard, and Ludlow, Peter. 1996. Intensional ‘transitive’ verbs and concealed complement clauses. Rivista di Linguistica, 8, 331–348.Google Scholar
Donnellan, Keith S. 1970. Proper names and identifying descriptions. Synthese, 21, 335–358.Google Scholar
Dowty, David. 1977. Toward a semantic analysis of verb aspect and the English ‘imperfective progressive’. Linguistics and Philosophy, 1, 45–78.Google Scholar
Dowty, David. 1985. On recent analyses of the semantics of control. Linguistics and Philosophy, 8, 291–331.Google Scholar
Dretske, Fred. 1975. The content of knowledge. Pages 77–93 of: Freed, Bruce, Marras, A., and Maynard, P. (eds.), Forms of Representation. Amsterdam: North Holland Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Dusche, M. 1995. Interpreted logical forms as objects of the attitudes. Journal of Logic, Language, and Information, 4, 301–315.Google Scholar
Farkas, Donka. 1992. On the semantics of subjunctive complements. Pages 69–104 of: Hirschbueler, P., and Koerner, K. (eds.), Romance Languages and Modern Linguistic Theory. Amsterdam and Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Ferreira, Marcelo. 2017. On the indexicality of Portuguese past tenses. Journal of Semantics, 34, 633–657.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiengo, Robert, and May, Robert. 1996. Interpreted logical forms: A critique. Rivista di Linguistica, 8, 349–373.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. 1963. The position of embedding transformations in a grammar. Word, 19, 208–231.Google Scholar
Fine, Kit. 2017. Truthmaker semantics. Pages 556–557 of: Hale, B., Wright, C., and Miller, A. (eds.), Companion to the Philosophy of Language. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.Google Scholar
von Fintel, Kai. 1999. NPI-licensing, Strawson-entailment, and context-dependency. Journal of Semantics, 16, 97–148.Google Scholar
von Fintel, Kai. 2012. The best we can (expect to) get? Challenges to the classic semantics for deontic modals. Paper for a session on Deontic Modals at the Central APA, February 17, 2012.Google Scholar
von Fintel, Kai, and Heim, Irene. 2011. Intensional semantics. Unpublished lecture notes, MIT.Google Scholar
Fodor, Janet Dean. 1970. The Linguistic Description of Opaque Contexts. PhD Dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Fodor, Jerry. 1977. Language of Thought. Hassocks: Harvester Press. 1978. Propositional attitudes. The Monist, 61, 501–523.Google Scholar
Forbes, Graeme. 2006. Attitude Problems: An Essay on Linguistic Intensionality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Forbes, Graeme. 2013. Intensional transitive verbs. In: Zalta, Edward N. (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, fall 2013 edn. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Frazier, Lyn, Charles, Clifton Jr., Rich, Stephanie, and Duff, John. 2018. Anticipating negation: The dos and don’ts of Neg Raising. Syntax, 21, 160–194.Google Scholar
Frege, Gottlob. 1892. Über Sinn und Bedeutung. Zeitschrift für Philosophie und philosophische Kritik, 100, 25–50.Google Scholar
Gajewski, Jon. 2005. Neg-Raising: Polarity and Presupposition. PhD dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Gajewski, Jon. 2007. Neg-raising and polarity. Linguistics and Philosophy, 30, 289–328.Google Scholar
García-Carpintero, Manuel, and Torre, Stephan. 2016. About Oneself: De Se Thought and Communication. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Geenhoven, Veerle Van, and McNally, Louise. 2005. On the property analysis of opaque complements. Lingua, 115, 885–914.Google Scholar
Gennari, Silvia. 1999. Embedded present tense and attitude reports. Pages 91–108 of: Matthews, Tanya, and Strolovitch, Devon (eds.), Semantics and Linguistic Theory 9. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.Google Scholar
Gennari, Silvia. 2003. Tense meanings and temporal interpretation. Journal of Semantics, 20, 35–71.Google Scholar
Geurts, Bart. 1998. Presuppositions and anaphors in attitude contexts. Linguistics and Philosophy, 21, 545–601.Google Scholar
Geurts, Bart, Beaver, David I., and Maier, Emar. 2016. Discourse representation theory. In: Zalta, Edward N. (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, spring 2016 edn. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Giannakidou, Anastasia. 1998. Polarity Sensitivity as (Non)Veridical Dependency. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Giannakidou, Anastasia. 1999. Affective dependencies. Linguistics and Philosophy, 22, 367–421.Google Scholar
Giannakidou, Anastasia, and Mari, Alda. Forthcoming. Veridicality in Grammar and Thought: Modality, Propositional Attitudes and Negation. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Giorgi, Alessandra, and Pianesi, Fabio. 1997. Tense and Aspect. NewYork, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gluer, Kathrin, and Pagin, Peter. 2006. Proper names and relational modality. Linguistics and Philosophy, 29, 507–535.Google Scholar
Graff, Delia. 2003. Desires, scope and tense. Philosophical Perspectives, 17, 141–163.Google Scholar
Grano, Thomas. 2011. Mental action and event structure in the semantics of try. Pages 426–443 of: Ashton, Neil, Chereches, Anca, and Lutz, David (eds.), Proceedings of SALT 21. eLanguage.Google Scholar
Grano, Thomas. 2015. Getting your to-do list under control: Imperative semantics and the grammar of intending. Pages 241–252 of: Bui, Thuy, and Özyildiz, Deniz (eds.), Proceedings of NELS 45, Vol. 1. Amherst, MA: GLSA Publications.Google Scholar
Grano, Thomas. 2016a. A coercion-free semantics for intention reports. Pages 213–223 of: Ershova, Ksenia, Falk, Joshua, Geiger, Jeffrey, Hebert, Zachary, Jr., Robert E. Lewis, Munoz, Patrick, Phillips, Jacob B., and Pillion, Betsy (eds.), Proceedings of the Fifty-First Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Grano, Thomas. 2016b. Semantic consequences of syntactic subject licensing: Aspectual predicates and concealed modality. Pages 306–322 of: Bade, Nadine, Berezovskaya, Polina, and Schöller, Anthea (eds.), Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 20. semanticsarchive.Google Scholar
Grano, Thomas. 2017a. Control, temporal orientation, and the cross-linguistic grammar of trying. Glossa, 2 (1), 94.Google Scholar
Grano, Thomas. 2017b. The logic of intention reports. Journal of Semantics, 34, 587–632.Google Scholar
Grano, Thomas. 2019a. Belief, intention, and the grammar of persuasion. Pages 125–136 of: Ronai, E., Stigliano, L., and Sun, Y. (eds.), Proceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Grano, Thomas. 2019b. Choice functions in intensional contexts: Rehabilitating Bäuerle’s challenge to the scope theory of intensionality. Pages 159–164 of: Stockwell, Richard, O’Leary, Maura, Xu, Zhongshi, and Zhou, Z.L. (eds.), Proceedings of the 36th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Grano, Thomas, and Lasnik, Howard. 2018. How to neutralize a finite clause boundary: Phase theory and the grammar of bound pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry, 49, 465–499.Google Scholar
Grice, Paul. 1967. Logic and Conversation. Unpublished ms. of the William James Lectures, Harvard University.Google Scholar
Gupta, Anil, and Savion, Leah. 1987. Semantics of propositional attitudes: A critical study of Cresswell’s “Structured Meanings.” Journal of Philosophical Logic, 16, 395–410.Google Scholar
Gutzmann, Daniel. 2015. Use-Conditional Meaning: Studies in Multidimensional Semantics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hacquard, Valentine. 2006. Aspects of Modality. PhD Dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Hacquard, Valentine. 2010. On the event relativity of modal auxiliaries. Natural Language Semantics, 18, 79–114.Google Scholar
Hacquard, Valentine. 2014. Bootstrapping attitudes. Pages 330–352 of: Snider, Todd, D’Antonio, Sarah, and Weigand, Mia (eds.), Proceedings of SALT 24. LSA and CLC Publications.Google Scholar
Hacquard, Valentine, and Lidz, Jeff. 2019. Children’s attitude problems: Bootstrapping verb meaning from syntax and pragmatics. Mind & Language, 34, 73–96.Google Scholar
Haida, Andreas. 2009. (Proto-)logophoricity in Tangale. Handout of talk given at NELS 40, MIT.Google Scholar
Harley, Heidi. 2004. Wanting, having, and getting: A note on Fodor and Lepore 1998. Linguistic Inquiry, 35, 255–267.Google Scholar
Hegarty, Michael. 2016. Modality and Propositional Attitudes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Heim, Irene. 1982. The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases. PhD Dissertation, University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Heim, Irene. 1992. Presupposition projection and the semantics of attitude verbs. Journal of Semantics, 9, 183–221.Google Scholar
Heim, Irene. 1994. Comments on Abusch’s theory of tense. Pages 143–170 of: Kamp, Hans (ed.), Ellipsis, Tense and Questions. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Heim, Irene. 2002. Features of pronouns in semantics and morphology. Handout of talk given at USC.Google Scholar
Heim, Irene, and Kratzer, Angelika. 1998. Semantics in Generative Grammar. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
Higginbotham, James. 1983. The logic of perceptual reports: An extensional alternative to situation semantics. Journal of Philosophy, 80, 100–127.Google Scholar
Higginbotham, James. 1986. Linguistic theory and Davidson’s program. Pages 29–48 of: Lepore, E., and MacLaughlin, B. (eds.), Truth and Interpretation: Perspectives on the Philosophy of Donald Davidson. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Higginbotham, James. 2003. Remembering, imagining, and the first person. Pages 496–533 of: Barber, Alex (ed.), Epistemology of Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Higginbotham, James. 2006. Sententialism: The thesis that complement clauses refer to themselves. Philosophical Issues: Philosophy of Language, 16, 101–119.Google Scholar
Higginbotham, James. 2009. Review of The Nature and Structure of Content (King 2007). Philosophical Books, 50, 29–37.Google Scholar
Hintikka, Jaakko. 1969. Semantics for propositional attitudes. Pages 21–45 of: Davis, J. W., Hockney, D. J., and Wilson, W. K. (eds.), Philosophical Logic. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Hintikka, Jaakko. 1975. Impossible possible worlds vindicated. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 4, 475–484.Google Scholar
Horn, Laurence R. 1975. Neg-raising predicates: Toward an explanation. Pages 280–294 of: Grossman, Robin E., San, L. James, and Vance, Timothy J. (eds.), Papers from the Eleventh Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Horn, Laurence R. 1978. Remarks on Neg-Raising. Pages 129–220 of: Cole, Peter (ed.), Syntax and Semantics 9: Pragmatics. New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Horn, Laurence R. 1989. A Natural History of Negation. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hornstein, Norbert, and Pietroski, Paul. 2010. Obligatory control and local reflexives: Copies as vehicles for de se readings. Pages 67–87 of: Hornstein, Norbert, and Polinsky, Maria (eds.), Movement Theory of Control. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Huang, C.-T. James, and Liu, C.-S. Luther. 2001. Logophoricity, attitudes and ziji at the interface. Pages 141–195 of: Cole, Peter, Huang, C.-T. James, and Hermon, Gabrielle (eds.), Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 33: Long-Distance Reflexives. New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Huang, C.-T. James, Li, Y.-H. Audrey, and Li, Yafei. 2009. The Syntax of Chinese. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Iatridou, Sabine. 2000. The grammatical ingredients of counterfactuality. Linguistic Inquiry, 31, 231–270.Google Scholar
Ioup, Georgette. 1975. Some universals for quantifier scope. Syntax and Semantics, 4, 37–58.Google Scholar
Jacobson, Pauline. 2018. Some people think there is Neg Raising and some don’t: Neg Raising meets ellipsis. Linguistic Inquiry, 49, 559–576.Google Scholar
Jacobson, Pauline. 2020. Neg Raising and ellipsis (and related issues) revisited. Natural Language Semantics, 28, 111–140.Google Scholar
Jago, Mark. 2007. Hintikka and Cresswell on logical omniscience. Logic and Logical Philosophy, 15, 325–354.Google Scholar
Kamp, Hans. 1990. Prolegomena to a structural account of belief and other attitudes. Pages 27–90 of: Anderson, C. A., and Owens, J. (eds.), Propositional Attitudes: The Role of Content in Logic, language, and Mind. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Kamp, Hans, van Genabith, Josef, and Reyle, Uwe. 2011. Discourse representation theory. Pages 125–394 of: Gabbay, Dov M., and Guenthner, Franz (eds.), Handbook of Philosophical Logic, 2nd Edition, Volume 15. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Kaplan, David. 1989. Demonstratives. Pages 481–563 of: Almog, Joseph, Perry, John, and Wetttstein, Howard (eds.), Themes from Kaplan. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Karttunen, Lauri. 1974. Presupposition and linguistic context. Theoretical Linguistics, 1, 181–194.Google Scholar
Katz, Graham. 2004. The temporal interpretation of finite and non-finite complement clauses of attitude verbs. Ms., University of Osnabrück.Google Scholar
Kennedy, Christopher. 1999. Projecting the Adjective: The Syntax and Semantics of Gradability and Comparison. New York, NY: Garland.Google Scholar
Kennedy, Christopher. 2007. Vagueness and grammar: The semantics of relative and absolute gradable adjectives. Linguistics and Philosophy, 30, 1–45.Google Scholar
Keshet, Ezra. 2008. Good Intensions: Paving Two Roads to a Theory of the De re / De dicto Distinction. PhD Dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Keshet, Ezra. 2010a. Possible worlds and wide scope indefinites: A reply to Baüerle 1983. Linguistic Inquiry, 41, 692–701.Google Scholar
Keshet, Ezra. 2011. Split intensionality: A new scope theory of de re and de dicto. Linguistics and Philosophy, 33, 251–283.Google Scholar
Keshet, Ezra, and Schwarz, Florian. 2019. De re / de dicto. In: Gundel, Jeanette, and Abbott, Barbara (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Reference. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
King, Jeffrey C. 1995. Structured propositions and complex predicates. Noûs, 29, 516–535.Google Scholar
King, Jeffrey C. 1996. Structured propositions and sentence structure. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 25, 495–521.Google Scholar
King, Jeffrey C. 2007. The Nature and Structure of Content. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Klecha, Peter. 2016. Modality and embedded temporal operators. Semantics and Pragmatics, 9, 1–49.Google Scholar
Klein, Ewan. 1978. On Sentences Which Report Beliefs, Desires, and Other Mental States. PhD Dissertation, University of Cambridge.Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 1981. The notional category of modality. Pages 38–74 of: Eikmeyer, J., and Riesner, H. (eds.), Words, Worlds, and Contexts. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 1996. Severing the external argument from the verb. Pages 109–137 of: Rooryck, J., and Zaring, L. (eds.), Phrase Structure and the Lexicon. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 1998a. More structural analogies between pronouns and tenses. Pages 92–109 of: Strolovitch, Devron, and Lawson, Aaron (eds.), Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory VIII. Cornell University: CLC Publications.Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 1998b. Scope or pseudoscope? Are there wide-scope indefinites? Pages 163–196 of: Rothstein, Susan (ed.), Events and Grammar. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 2006. Decomposing attitude verbs. Talk given in honor of Anita Mittwoch. The Hebrew University Jerusalem. Handout available at http://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/DcwY2JkM/attitude-verbs2006.pdf.Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 2019. Situations in natural language semantics. In: Zalta, Edward N. (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, summer 2019 edn. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Kripke, Saul. 1979. A puzzle about belief. Pages 239–283 of: Margalit, Avishai (ed.), Meaning and Use. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Kubota, Yusuke, Lee, Jungmee, Smirnova, Anastasia, and Tonhauser, Judith. 2009. On the cross-linguistic interpretation of embedded tenses. Pages 307–320 of: Riester, Arndt, and Solstad, Torgrim (eds.), Sinn un Bedeutung 13. Online Publikationsverbund der Universität Stuttgart.Google Scholar
Kuno, Susumu, and Kaburaki, Etsuko. 1977. Empathy and syntax. Linguistic Inquiry, 8, 625–672.Google Scholar
Kusumoto, Kiyomi. 1998. Tenses as logophoric pronouns. Handout of talk given at the MIT/UConn/UMass Semantics Workshop.Google Scholar
Lakoff, Robin. 1969. A syntactic argument for negative transportation. Pages 140–147 of: Binnick, Robert, Davison, Alice, Green, Georgia M., and Morgan, Jerry L. (eds.), Papers from the Fifth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Landau, Idan. 2013. Control in Generative Grammar: A Research Companion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Landau, Idan. 2018. Direct variable binding and agreement in obligatory control. Pages 1–41 of: Patel-Grosz, P., Grosz, P., and Zobel, S. (eds.), Pronouns in Embedded Contexts at the Syntax-Semantics Interface. Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
Larson, Richard. 2002. The grammar of intensionality. Pages 228–262 of: Preyer, Gerhard, and Peter, Georg (eds.), Logical Form and Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Larson, Richard, and Ludlow, Peter. 1993. Interpreted logical forms. Synthese, 95, 305–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larson, Richard, and Segal, Gabriel. 1995. Knowledge of Meaning. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Larson, Richard, den Dikken, Marcel, and Ludlow, Peter. 1997. Intensional transitive verbs and abstract clausal complementation. Available at http://semlab5.sbs.sunysb.edu/˜rlarson/itv.pdf.Google Scholar
Lasersohn, Peter. 2005. Context dependence, disagreement, and predicates of personal taste. Linguistics and Philosophy, 28, 643–686.Google Scholar
Lassiter, Daniel. 2011. Measurement and Modality. PhD dissertation, New York University.Google Scholar
Lepore, Ernie, and Loewer, Barry. 1989. You can say that again. Midwest Studies in Philosophy, 14, 338–356.Google Scholar
Levinson, Dmitry. 2003. Probabilistic model-theoretic semantics for want. Pages 222–239 of: Young, R., and Zhou, Y. (eds.), Proceedings of SALT 13. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.Google Scholar
Lewis, David. 1979. Attitudes de dicto and de se. The Philosophical Review, 88, 513–543.Google Scholar
Lin, Jo-Wang. 2012. Tenselessness. Pages 669–695 of: Binnick, Robert I. (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Tense and Aspect. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ludlow, Peter. 1997. Introduction to Part IV: Attitude reports. Pages 771–778 of: Ludlow, Peter (ed.), Readings in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Ludlow, Peter. 2000. Interpreted logical forms, belief attribution, and the dynamic lexicon. Pages 31–42 of: Jaszczolt, K. M. (ed.), Pragmatics and Propositional Attitude Reports. Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Ludwig, Kirk. 2014. Propositions and higher-order attitude attributions. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 43, 741–765.Google Scholar
Ludwig, Kirk, and Ray, Greg. 1998. Semantics for opaque contexts. Philosophical Perspectives, 12, 141–166.Google Scholar
Lycan, William G. 2012. Desire considered as a propositional attitude. Philosophical Perspectives, 26, 201–215.Google Scholar
Maier, Emar. 2006. Belief in Context: Toward a Unified Semantics of De Re and De Se Attitude Reports. PhD Dissertation, Radbound Universiteit Nijmegen.Google Scholar
Maier, Emar. 2009. Presupposing acquaintance: a unified semantic for de dicto, de re, and de se belief reports. Linguistics and Philosophy, 32, 429–474.Google Scholar
Maier, Emar. 2011. On the roads to de se. Pages 393–412 of: Ashton, Neil, Chereches, Anca, and Lutz, David (eds.), Proceedings of SALT 21. eLanguage.Google Scholar
Malamud, Sophia Alexandra. 2006. Semantics and Pragmatics of Arbitrariness. PhD dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Mates, Benson. 1952. Synonymity. Pages 111–138 of: Linsky, Leonard (ed.), Semantics and the Philosophy of Language. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Matthewson, Lisa. 1999. On the interpretation of wide-scope indefinites. Natural Language Semantics, 7, 79–134.Google Scholar
May, Robert. 1977. The Grammar of Quantification. PhD Dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Mayr, Clemens. 2019. Triviality and interrogative embedding: Context sensitivity, factivity, and neg-raising. Natural Language Semantics, 27, 227–278.Google Scholar
McCawley, James D. 1974. On identifying the remains of deceased clauses. Language Research, 9, 73–85.Google Scholar
McKay, Thomas, and Nelson, Michael. 2014. Propositional attitude reports. In: Zalta, Edward N. (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, spring 2014 edn. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Merchant, Jason. 1999. Book notice of Peter Ludlow (ed.) (1997) Readings in the Philosophy of Language, MIT Press. Language, 75, 862–863.Google Scholar
Mill, John Stuart. 1843. A System of Logic, Ratiocinative and Inductive, Being a Connected View of the Principles of Evidence, and the Methods of Scientific Investigation. London: John W. Parker.Google Scholar
Milsark, Gary. 1974. Existential Sentences in English. PhD Dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Moltmann, Friederike. 1994.Attitude reports, events, and partial models. Ms., CUNY Graduate Center.Google Scholar
Moltmann, Friederike. 1997. Intensional transitive verbs and quantifiers. Natural Language Semantics, 5, 1–52.Google Scholar
Moltmann, Friederike. 2003. Propositional attitudes without propositions. Synthese, 135, 70–118.Google Scholar
Moltmann, Friederike. 2008. Intensional verbs and their intentional objects. Natural Language Semantics, 16, 239–270.Google Scholar
Moltmann, Friederike. 2013a. Abstract Objects and the Semantics of Natural Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Moltmann, Friederike. 2013b. Propositions, attitudinal objects, and the distinction between actions and products. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 43, 679–701.Google Scholar
Moltmann, Friederike. 2017. Cognitive products and the semantics of attitude verbs and deontic modals. Pages 254–290 of: Moltmann, F., and Textor, M. (eds.), Act-Based Conceptions of Propositional Content. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Moltmann, Friederike. Forthcoming. Outline of an object-based truthmaker semantics for modals and attitude reports. In: Egan, A., van Elswyck, P., and Kinder-man, D. (eds.), Unstructured Content. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Morgan, Jerry. 1970. On the criterion of identity for noun phrase deletion. Pages 380–389 of: Proceedings of CLS 6. Chicago, IL: CLS.Google Scholar
Moulton, Keir. 2009. Natural Selection and the Syntax of Clausal Complementation. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Musan, Renate. 1995. On the Temporal Interpretation of Noun Phrases. PhD Dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Ninan, Dilip. 2008. Imagination, Content, and the Self. PhD Dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Ninan, Dilip. 2010. De se attitudes: Ascription and communication. Philosophy Compass, 5 /7, 551–567.Google Scholar
Ninan, Dilip. 2012. Counterfactual attitudes and multi-centered worlds. Semantics & Pragmatics, 5, 1–57.Google Scholar
Ogihara, Toshiyuki. 1989. Temporal Reference in English and Japanese. PhD Dissertation, University of Texas at Austin.Google Scholar
Ogihara, Toshiyuki. 1995a. Double-access sentences and reference to states. Natural Language Semantics, 3, 177–210.Google Scholar
Ogihara, Toshiyuki. 1995b. The semantics of tense in embedded clauses. Linguistic Inquiry, 26, 663–679.Google Scholar
Ogihara, Toshiyuki. 2007. Tense and aspect in truth-conditional semantics. Lingua, 117, 392–418.Google Scholar
Pagin, Peter. 2019. Belief sentences and compositionality. Journal of Semantics, 36, 241–284.Google Scholar
Pan, Haihua. 1995. Locality, Self-Ascription, Discourse Prominence, and Mandarin Reflexives. PhD Dissertation, University of Texas at Austin.Google Scholar
Partee, Barbara. 1973. Some structural analogies between tenses and pronouns. Journal of Philosophy, 70(18), 601–609.Google Scholar
Partee, Barbara. 1974. Opacity and scope. Pages 81–101 of: Munitz, and Unger (eds.), Semantics and Philosophy. New York, NY: NYU Press.Google Scholar
Partee, Barbara. 1982. Belief-sentences and the limits of semantics. Pages 87–106 of: Peters, Stanley, and Saarinen, Esa (eds.), Processes, Beliefs, and Questions. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Partee, Barbara H., ter Meulen, Alice, and Wall, Robert E. 1990. Mathematical Methods in Linguistics. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
Pasternak, Robert. 2019. A lot of hatred and a ton of desire: intensity in the mereology of mental states. Linguistics and Philosophy, 42, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988–018-9247-x, 267–316.Google Scholar
Patel-Grosz, Pritty. 2020. Pronominal typology and the de se/de re distinction. Linguistics and Philosophy, 43, 537–587.Google Scholar
Pearson, Hazel. 2013. The Sense of Self: Topics in the Semantics of de se Expressions. PhD dissertation, Harvard University.Google Scholar
Pearson, Hazel. 2015. The interpretation of the logophoric pronoun in Ewe. Natural Language Semantics, 23, 77–118.Google Scholar
Pearson, Hazel. 2016. The semantics of partial control. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 34, 691–738.Google Scholar
Pearson, Hazel. Forthcoming. Attitude verbs. In: Gutzmann, Daniel, Matthewson, Lisa, Meier, Cécile, Rullmann, Hotze, and Zimmerman, Thomas Ede (eds.), The Wiley-Blackwell Companion to Semantics. Oxford: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Pearson, Hazel, and Dery, Jeruen. 2014. Dreaming de re and de se: Experimental evidence for the Oneiric Reference Constraint. Pages 322–339 of: Etxeberria, Urtzi, Fălăuş, Anamaria, Irurtzun, Aritz, and Leferman, Bryan (eds.), Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 18. Bayonne and Vitoria-Gasteiz: semanticsarchive.Google Scholar
Percus, Orin. 2000. Constraints on some other variables in syntax. Natural Language Semantics, 8, 173–229.Google Scholar
Percus, Orin. Forthcoming. Index-dependence and embedding. In: Gutzmann, Daniel, Matthewson, Lisa, Meier, Cécile, Rullmann, Hotze, and Zimmerman, Thomas Ede (eds.), The Wiley-Blackwell Companion to Semantics. Oxford: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Percus, Orin, and Sauerland, Uli. 2003a. On the LFs of attitude reports. Pages 228–242 of: Weisberger, Matthias (ed.), Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 7. Konstanz: Universität Konstanz.Google Scholar
Percus, Orin, and Sauerland, Uli. 2003b. Pronoun movement in dream reports. Pages 347–366 of: Kad-owaki, Makoto, and Kawahara, Shigeto (eds.), Proceedings of NELS 33. Amherst: GLSA.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, David. 1992. Zero Syntax, Vol. II. Ms, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Phillips-Brown, Milo. 2018. I want to, but … . Pages 951–968 of: Truswell, Robert, Cummins, Chris, Heycock, Caroline, Rabern, Brian, and Rohde, Hannah (eds.), Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 21. semantic-sarchive.net.Google Scholar
Pickel, Bryan. 2017. Structured propositions in a generative grammar. Mind, 128, 329–366.Google Scholar
Pickel, Bryan, and Rabern, Brian. 2017. Does semantic relationism solve Frege’s puzzle? Journal of Philosophical Logic, 46, 97–118.Google Scholar
Portner, Paul. 1997. The semantics of mood, complementation, and conversational force. Natural Language Semantics, 5, 167–212.Google Scholar
Portner, Paul. 2005. What is Meaning? Fundamentals of Formal Semantics. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
Portner, Paul, and Rubinstein, Aynat. 2012. Mood and contextual commitment. Pages 461–487 of: Chereches, Anca (ed.), The Proceedings of SALT 22. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.Google Scholar
Prince, Ellen. 1976. The syntax and semantics of Neg-Raising, with evidence from French. Language, 52, 404–426.Google Scholar
Prior, Arthur. 1958. Escapism: The logical basis of ethics. Pages 135–146 of: Melden, A. I. (ed.), Essays in Moral Philosophy. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press.Google Scholar
Putnam, Hilary. 1954. Synonymity, and the analysis of belief sentences. Analysis, 14, 114–122.Google Scholar
Quine, Willard van Orman. 1951. Two dogmas of empiricism. The Philosophical Review, 60, 20–43.Google Scholar
Quine, Willard van Orman. 1956. Quantifiers and propositional attitudes. Journal of Philosophy, 53, 177–187.Google Scholar
Quine, Willard van Orman. 1969. Propositional objects. Pages 139–160 of: Quine, Willard van Orman (ed.), Ontological Relativity and Other Essays. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Rantala, Veikko. 1982. Impossible worlds semantics and logical omniscience. Acta Philosophica Fennica, 35, 106–115.Google Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya. 1990.Self-representation. Ms. based on lecture delivered at Princeton conference on anaphora, October 1990.Google Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya. 1997. Quantifier scope: How labor is divided between QR and choice functions. Linguistics and Philosophy, 20, 335–397.Google Scholar
Richard, Mark. 1990. Propositional Attitudes: An Essay on Thoughts and How We Ascribe Them. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Richard, Mark. 2001. Seeking a centaur, adoring Adonis: Intensional transitives and empty terms. Pages 103–127 of: French, P., and Wettstein, H. (eds.), Figurative Language, Vol. 25. Midwest Studies in Philosophy. Oxford and New York, MA: Basic Blackwell.Google Scholar
Ripley, David. 2012. Structures and circumstances: Two ways to fine-grain. Synthese, 189, 97–118.Google Scholar
Romoli, Jacopo. 2013. A scalar implicature-based approach to Neg-Raising. Linguistics and Philosophy, 36, 291–353.Google Scholar
Romoli, Jacopo, and Sudo, Yasutada. 2009. De re/de dicto ambiguity and presupposition projection. Pages 425–438 of: Riester, Arndt, and Solstad, Torgrim (eds.), Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 13. University of Stuttgart.Google Scholar
Rooth, Mats. 1982. Association with Focus. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Rooth, Mats. 1992. A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics, 1, 75–116.Google Scholar
Ross, John R. 1973. Slifting. Pages 133–169 of: Schutzenburger, M. P., Gross, M., and Halle, M. (eds.), The Formal Analysis of Natural Languages: Proceedings of the First International Conference. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Ross, John R. 1976. To ‘have’ and to not have ‘have’. Pages 263–270 of: Jazayery, Mohammad Ali, Polomé, Edgar C., and Winter, Werner (eds.), Linguistic and Literary Studies in Honor of Archibald A. Hill. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Rubinstein, Aynat. 2012. Root Modalities and Attitude Predicates. PhDDissertation, University of Massachusetts Amherst.Google Scholar
Rubinstein, Aynat. 2017. Straddling the line between attitude verbs and necessity modals. Pages 109–131 of: Arregui, Ana, Rivero, María Luisa, and Salanova, Andrés (eds.), Modality across Syntactic Categories. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Russell, Bertrand. 1940. An Inquiry into Meaning and Truth. London: George Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
Sag, Ivan, and Pollard, Carl. 1991. An integrated theory of complement control. Language, 67, 63–113.Google Scholar
Salmon, Nathan. 2010. Three perspectives on quantifying in. Pages 64–76 of: Jeshion, Robin (ed.), New Perspectives on Singular Thought. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Saul, Jeniffer M. 1998. The pragmatics of attitude ascription. Philosophical Studies, 92, 363–389.Google Scholar
Saul, Jeniffer M. 1993. Still an attitude problem. Linguistics and Philosophy, 16, 423–435.Google Scholar
Saul, Jeniffer M. 2007. Simple Sentences, Substitution, and Intuitions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Scheffler, Israel. 1955. On synonymy and indirect discourse. Philosophy of Science, 22, 39–44.Google Scholar
Schlenker, Philippe. 1999. Propositional Attitudes and Indexicality: A Cross-Categorial Approach. PhD Dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Revised version 2000.Google Scholar
Schlenker, Philippe. 2003. A plea for monsters. Linguistics and Philosophy, 26, 29–120.Google Scholar
Schlenker, Philippe. 2011. Indexicality and de se reports. Pages 1561–1604 of: Maienborn, Claudia, von Heusinger, Klaus, and Portner, Paul (eds.), Semantics: An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Schwager, Magdalena. 2011. Speaking of qualities. Pages 395–412 of: Cormany, Ed, Ito, Satoshi, and Lutz, David (eds.), Proceedings of SALT 19. eLanguage.Google Scholar
Schwarz, Florian. 2006. On needing Propositions and looking for Properties. Pages 259–276 of: Gibson, M., and Howell, J. (eds.), Proceedings of SALT XVI. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.Google Scholar
Schwarz, Florian. Forthcoming. Intensional transitive verbs: I owe you a horse. In: Gutzmann, Daniel, Matthewson, Lisa, Meier, Cécile, Rullmann, Hotze, and Zimmerman, Thomas Ede (eds.), The Wiley-Blackwell Companion to Semantics. Oxford: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Segal, Gabriel. 1989. A preference for sense and reference. Journal of Philosophy, 86, 73–89.Google Scholar
Seymour, Michel. 1992. A sentential theory of propositional attitudes. Journal of Philosophy, 89, 181–201.Google Scholar
Sharvit, Yael. 2003. Trying to be progressive: The extensionality of try. Journal of Semantics, 20, 403–445.Google Scholar
Sharvit, Yael. 2011. Covaluation and unexpected BT effects. Journal of Semantics, 28, 55–106.Google Scholar
Sharvit, Yael. 2014. On the universal principles of tense embedding. Journal of Semantics, 31, 263–313.Google Scholar
Shier, David. 2012. Propositional attitude reports. Pages 795–808 of: Russell, G., and Fara, D. Graff (eds.), The Routledge Companion to Philosophy of Language. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Sider, Theodore. 1995. Three problems for Richard’s theory of belief ascriptions. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 25, 487–514.Google Scholar
Sim, Kwang Mong. 1997. Epistemic logic and logical omniscience: A survey. International Journal of Intelligent Systems, 12, 57–81.Google Scholar
Smith, Carlota. 1978. The syntax and interpretation of temporal expressions in English. Linguistics and Philosophy, 2, 43–99.Google Scholar
Soames, Scott. 1987. Direct reference, propositional attitudes and semantic content. Philosophical Topics, 15, 47–87.Google Scholar
Soames, Scott. 1995. Beyond singular propositions. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 25, 515–549.Google Scholar
Soames, Scott. 2002. Beyond Rigidity: The Unfinished Semantic Agenda of Naming and Necessity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Soames, Scott. 2010. Philosophy of Language. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Soames, Scott. 2014. Cognitive propositions. Pages 91–124 of: King, Jeffrey C., Soames, Scott, and Speaks, Jeff (eds.), New Thinking about Propositions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Soames, Scott. 2015. Rethinking Language, Mind, and Meaning. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Stalnaker, Robert. 1968. A theory of conditionals. Pages 98–112 of: Resher, N. (ed.), Studies in Logical Theory. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
von Stechow, Arnim. 1995. On the proper treatment of tense. Pages 362–386 of: Galloway, Teresa, and Simons, Mandy (eds.), SALT V. Cornell University.Google Scholar
von Stechow, Arnim. 2002. Binding by verbs: Tense, person and mood under attitudes. Ms., University of Tübingen.Google Scholar
von Stechow, Arnim. 2003. Feature deletion under semantic binding. Pages 133–157 of: Kad-owaki, M., and Kawahara, S. (eds.), Proceedings of NELS 33. Amherst, MA: GLSA Publications.Google Scholar
von Stechow, Arnim, and Zimmerman, Thomas Ede. 2005. A problem for a compositional account of de re attitudes. Pages 207–228 of: Carlson, G. N., and Pelletier, F. J. (eds.), Reference and Quantification: The Partee Effect. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Stephenson, Tamina. 2007a. Judge dependence, epistemic modals, and predicates of personal taste. Linguistics and Philosophy, 30, 487–525.Google Scholar
Stephenson, Tamina. 2007b.Towards a Theory of Subjective Meaning. PhD Dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Stephenson, Tamina. 2010. Control in centred worlds. Journal of Semantics, 27, 409–436.Google Scholar
Sudo, Yasutada. 2014. On de re predicates. Pages 447–456 of: Santana-LaBarge, Robert E. (ed.), West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics 31. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Swanson, Eric. 2011. Propositional atittudes. Pages 1538–1561 of: Maienborn, Claudia, von Heusinger, Klaus, and Portner, Paul (eds.), Semantics: An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Szabó, Zoltán Gendler. 2010. Specific, yet opaque. Pages 32–41 of: Aloni, Maria, Bastiaanse, Harald, de Jager, Tikitu, and Schulz, Katrin (eds.), Logic, Language, and Meaning: Proceedings of the Seventeenth Amsterdam Colloquium. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Tancredi, Christopher. 2010. Rigid designation and Frege’s puzzle. CARLS series of Advanced Study of Logic and Sensibility, 4, 185–196.Google Scholar
Thomason, Richmond H. 1980. A model theory for propositional attitudes. Linguistics and Philosophy, 4, 47–70.Google Scholar
Todorović, Neda. 2015. Tense and aspect (in)compatibility in Serbian matrix and subordinate clauses. Lingua, 167, 82–111.Google Scholar
Tonhauser, Judith. 2015. Cross-linguistic temporal reference. Annual Review of Linguistics, 1, 129–154.Google Scholar
Uegaki, Wataru. 2016. Content nouns and the semantics of question-embedding. Journal of Semantics, 33, 623–660.Google Scholar
Uegaki, Wataru. 2019. The semantics of question-embedding predicates. Language and Linguistics Compass, 13, 1–17.Google Scholar
van Rooij, Robert. 1999. Some analyses of pro-attitudes. Pages 534–548 of: de Swart, Henriëtte (ed.), Logic, Game Theory and Social Choice. Tilburg: Tilburg University Press.Google Scholar
Villalta, Elisabeth. 2008. Mood and gradability: An investigation of the subjunctive mood in Spanish. Linguistics and Philosophy, 31, 467–522.Google Scholar
Wang, Yingying, and Pan, Haihua. 2014. A note on the non-de se interpretation of attitude reports. Language, 90, 746–754.Google Scholar
Wechsler, Stephen. 2008. Dualist syntax. In: Müller, Stefan (ed.), Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar. CSLI On-line Publications.Google Scholar
Wechsler, Stephen. 2010. What ‘you’ and ‘I’ mean to each other: Person indexicals, self-ascription, and theory of mind. Language, 86, 332–365.Google Scholar
White, Aaron Steven, and Rawlins, Kyle. 2018. Question agnosticism and change of state. Pages 1325–1342 of: Truswell, Rob, Cummins, Chris, Heycock, Caroline, Rabern, Brian, and Rohde, Hannah (eds.), Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 21. Independently published.Google Scholar
Williams, Alexander. 2015. Arguments in Syntax and Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Winter, Yoad. 1997. Choice functions and the scopal semantics of indefinites. Linguistics and Philosophy, 20, 399–467.Google Scholar
Wurmbrand, Susi. 2014. Tense and aspect in English infinitives. Linguistic Inquiry, 45, 403–447.Google Scholar
Yalcin, Seth. 2018. Belief as question-sensitive. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 97, 23–47.Google Scholar
Yanovich, Igor. 2011. The problem of counterfactual de re attitudes. Pages 56–75 of: Ashton, Neil, Chereches, Anca, and Lutz, David (eds.), Proceedings of SALT 21. eLanguage.Google Scholar
Zimmerman, Thomas Ede. 1993. On the proper treatment of opacity in certain verbs. Natural Language Semantics, 1, 149–179.Google Scholar
Zimmerman, Thomas Ede. 2006. Monotonicity in opaque verbs. Linguistics and Philosophy, 29, 715–761.Google Scholar