Kaplan's three monsters

Article English OPEN
Predelli, Stefano (2014)
  • Publisher: Oxford University Press
  • Related identifiers: doi: 10.1093/analys/anu059
  • Subject:
    acm: GeneralLiterature_MISCELLANEOUS

This paper analytically distinguishes three concepts of a semantic 'monster', that is, of an operator on character, which are commonly confused in the literature
  • References (9)

    Anand, P. & A. Nevins. 2004. Shifty Operators in Changing Contexts. In R. Young (ed.), Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory 14. CLC Publications Cornell University, 20-37.

    Dever, J. 2004. Binding into Character. Canadian Journal of Philosophy Supp. Vol. 34: 29-80.

    Israel, D. and J. Perry 1996. Where Monsters Dwell. In J. Seligman and D. Westerståhl (eds.), Logic, Language, and Computation. CSLI Publications Maier, E. 2007. Quotation Marks as Monsters, or the Other Way Around? In M. Aloni, P. Dekker, and F. Roelofsen (eds.), Proceedings of the Sixteenth Amsterdam Colloquium. ILLC, 145-150.

    Predelli, S. 2008. Modal Monsters and Talk About Fiction. Journal of Philosophical Logic 37: 277-297.

    Rabern, B. 2013 Monsters in Kaplan's Logic of Demonstratives. Philosophical Studies 164: 393-404.

    Recanati, F. 2001. Open Quotation. Mind 439: 637-687.

    Santorio, P. 2010. Modals are Monsters: On Indexical Shift in English. Proceedings of SALT 20: 289-308.

    Schlenker, P. 2003. A Plea for Monsters. Linguistics and Philosophy 26: 29-120.

    Thomasson, R. 1975. Necessity, Quotation, and Truth: An Indexical Theory. Philosophia 5: 219-241.

  • Metrics
    No metrics available
Share - Bookmark