Aakhus, M. (2017). The communicative work of organisations in shaping argumentative realities. Philosophy & Technology, 30, 191–208. doi.org/10.1007/s13347-016-0224-4.Google Scholar

Aakhus, M. and Lewiński, M. (2021). Argumentation in Complex Communication. Managing Disagreement in a Polylogue. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Abbott, B. (2000). Presuppositions as nonassertions. Journal of Pragmatics, 32, 1419–1437.Google Scholar

Abbott, B.(2008). Presuppositions and common ground. Linguistics and Philosophy, 31, 523–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Abbott, B.(2016). An information packaging approach to presuppositions and conventional implicatures. Topoi, 35, 9–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Abell, C. (2020). Fiction: A Philosophical Analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Abrusán, M. (2011). Presuppositional and negative islands: A semantic account. Natural Language Semantics, 19(3), 257–321.Google Scholar

Abrusán, M.(2014). Weak Island Semantics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Abrusán, M.(2018). Semantic anomaly, pragmatic infelicity, and ungrammaticality. Annual Review of Linguistics, 5, 329–351. doi.org/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011718–011938.Google Scholar

Abrusán, M., Asher, N., and van de Cruys, T. (2018). Content vs. function words: The view from distributional semantics. Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung, 22(1), 1–21. doi.org/10.18148/sub/2018.v0i22.2.Google Scholar

Abrusán, M., Asher, N., and van de Cruys, T.(in press). Grammaticality and meaning shift. In Sagi, G. and Woods, J., eds., The Semantic Conception of Logic: Essays on Consequence, Invariance, and Meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Absalom, M. and Hajek, J. (1997). Raddopiomento sintatico: What happens when the theory is too tight? In Bertinetto, P. M., Gaeta, L., Jetchev, G., and Michaels, D., eds., Certamen Phonologicum II. Turin: Rosenberg and Sellier, pp. 159–179.Google Scholar

Achinstein, P. (2001). The Book of Evidence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Achinstein, P.(2018). Speculation: Within and about Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Adger, D. (2018). The autonomy of syntax. In Hornstein, N., Lasnik, H., Patel-Grosz, P., and Yang, C., eds., Syntactic Structures after 60 Years: The Impact of the Chomskyan Revolution in Linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 153–176.Google Scholar

Adler, J. (1997). Lying, deceiving, or falsely implicating. The Journal of Philosophy, 94, 435–452.Google Scholar

Agricola, R. (1992). De inventione dialectica, ed. Mundt, L.. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar

Åkerman, J. and Greenough, P. (2009). Vagueness and nonindexical contextualism. In Sawyer, S., ed., New Waves in the Philosophy of Language. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 8–23.Google Scholar

Åkerman, J. and Greenough, P.(2010). Hold the context fixed: Vagueness still remains. In Dietz, R. and Moruzzi, S., eds., Cuts and Clouds: Vagueness, Its Nature, and Its Logic. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 275–289.Google Scholar

Akmajian, A., Demers, R. A., Farmer, A. K., and Harnish, R. M. (1995). Linguistics: An Introduction to Language and Communication. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Alderson-Day, B. and Fernyhough, C. (2015). Inner speech: Development, cognitive functions, phenomenology, and neurobiology. Psychological Bulletin, 141(5), 931–965.Google Scholar

Alexiadou, A., Borer, H., and Schäfer, F., eds. (2015). The Syntax of Roots and the Roots of Syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Allan, K. (2009). The Western Classical Tradition in Linguistics, 2nd expanded ed. London and Oakville, CT: Equinox.Google Scholar

Allan, K. and Jaszczolt, K. M., eds. (2012). The Cambridge Handbook of Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Almog, J., Perry, J., and Wettstein, H., eds. (1989). Themes from Kaplan. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Aloni, M. and Dekker, P., eds. (2016). The Cambridge Handbook of Formal Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Alston, W. P. (1964). The Philosophy of Language. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar

Alston, W. P.A Realist Conception of Truth. Ithaca, NY and London: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar

Alston, W. P.(2000). Illocutionary Acts and Sentence Meaning. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar

Althusser, L. (1971). Lenin and Philosophy and Other Essays. New York: Monthly Review Press.Google Scholar

Altshuler, D. ed. (in press). Linguistics Meets Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Amante, D. (1981). The theory of ironic speech acts. Poetics Today, 2(2), 77–96.Google Scholar

Amossy, R. (2001). “Ethos” at the crossroads of disciplines: Rhetoric, pragmatics, sociology. Poetics Today, 22(1), 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lampsacenus, Anaximenes (1966). Ars Rhetorica, ed. M. Fuhrmann. Leipzig: Teubner.Google Scholar

Anderson, L. and Lepore, E. (2013a). Slurring words. Noûs, 47(1), 25–48. doi.org/10.1111/j.1468–0068.2010.00820.x.Google Scholar

Anderson, L. and Lepore, E.(2013b). What did you call me? Slurs as prohibited words. Analytic Philosophy, 54(3), 350–363. doi.org/10.1111/phib.12023.Google Scholar

Anderson, L., Haslanger, S., and Langton, R. (2012). Language and race. In Russell, G. and Graff Fara, D., eds., The Routledge Companion to Philosophy of Language. New York: Routledge, pp. 753–767.Google Scholar

Angermuller, J., Maingueneau, D., and Wodak, R., eds. (2014). The Discourse Studies Reader: Main Currents in Theory and Analysis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Anscombe, G. E. M. (1958). Intention. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar

Antomo, M., Müller, S., Paul, K., Paluch, M., and Thalmann, M. (2018). When children aren’t more logical than adults: An empirical investigation of lying by falsely implicating. Journal of Pragmatics, 138, 135–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Aoun, J., Hornstein, N., and Sportiche, D. (1981). Some aspects of wide scope quantification. Journal of Linguistic Research, 1, 69–95.Google Scholar

Apostel, L. (1972). Negation: The tension between ontological positivity and anthropological negativity. Logique et Analyse, 15, 209–317.Google Scholar

Aquinas, T. (1972). Question 110: Lying. In Aquinas, T., Summa Theologiae. Vol. XLI: Virtues of Justice in the Human Community. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar

Arico, A. and Fallis, D. (2013). Lies, damned lies, and statistics: An empirical investigation of the concept of lying. Philosophical Psychology, 26(6), 790–816.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Aristotle (1975). Categories, ed. Ackrill, J. M. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Aristotle(1982). The Complete Works of Aristotle, 2 vols., ed. Barnes, J.. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Aristotle(1984). The Complete Works of Aristotle: The Revised Oxford Translation, 2 vols, ed. Barnes, J.. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Armour-Garb, B. (2010). Horwichian minimalism and the generalization problem. Analysis, 70, 693–703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Armstrong, D. (1978). A Theory of Universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Armstrong, D.(2004). Truth and Truthmakers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Armstrong, D.(2016a). The problem of lexical innovation. Linguistics and Philosophy, 39, 87–118.Google Scholar

Armstrong, D.(2016b). Coordination, triangulation, and language use. Inquiry, 59(1), 80–112.Google Scholar

Arnauld, A. and Lancelot, C. (1975). General and Rational Grammar: The Port-Royal Grammar, trans. J. Rieux and B. E. Rollin. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar

Arnauld, A. and Nicole, P. (1996). Logic or the Art of Thinking, trans. and ed. J. V. Buroker. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Asher, N. (2011). Lexical Meaning in Context: A Web of Words. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ashwell, L. (2016). Gendered slurs. Social Theory and Practice, 42(2), 228–239.Google Scholar

Ashworth, E. J. (2010). Terminist logic. In Pasnau, R. and van Dyke, C., eds., The Cambridge History of Medieval Philosophy, Vol. I. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 146–158.Google Scholar

Asim, J. (2007). The N-word: Who Can Say It, Who Shouldn’t and Why. Boston and New York: Houghton Mifflin Company.Google Scholar

Assad, F. and Cockburn, W. (1972). Four-year study of WHO Virus Reports on enterovirus other than poliovirus. Bulletin of The World Health Organization, 46, 329–336.Google Scholar

Atkinson, K., Baroni, P., Giacomin, M., Hunter, A., Prakken, H., Reed, C., Simari, G., Thimm, M., and Villata, S. (2017). Towards artificial argumentation. AI Magazine, 38(3), 25–36.Google Scholar

Atlas, J. D. (1977). Negation, ambiguity, and presupposition. Linguistics and Philosophy, 1, 321–336.Google Scholar

Atlas, J. D. (1979). How linguistics matters to philosophy: Presupposition, truth, and meaning. In Oh, C.-K and Dinneen, D. A., eds., Syntax and Semantics, Vol. XI. New York: Academic Press, pp. 265–281.Google Scholar

Atlas, J. D.(1989). Philosophy without Ambiguity: A Logico-Linguistic Essay. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

Attardo, S. (1999). Covert speech acts and their meaning. In Manning, A. D., Judson, H., Runolfson, J. C., and Young, J., eds., Proceedings of the 1999 Deseret Language and Linguistics Society Simposium. Provo, UT: Brigham Young University, pp. 202–217.Google Scholar

Attardo, S.(2000). Irony as relevant inappropriateness. Journal of Pragmatics, 32, 793–826.Google Scholar

Attardo, S., Eisterhold, J., Hay, J., and Poggi, I. (2003). Multimodal markers of irony and sarcasm. Humor, 16(2), 243–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Augustine (1952). Lying. In Augustine, Treatises on Various Subjects, ed. Deferrari, R. J.. New York: Catholic University of America, pp. 53–120.Google Scholar

Augustine(1975). De dialectica, trans. and ed. B. D. Jackson and J. Pinborg. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar

Augustine(2002). On the Trinity, Books 8–15, trans. and ed. S. McKenna and G. B. Matthews. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Auroux, S. and Kouloughli, D. (1993). Why is there no “true” philosophy of linguistics? In Harré, R. and Harris, R., eds., Linguistics and Philosophy: The Controversial Interface. Oxford: Pergamon Press, pp. 21–41.Google Scholar

Austin, J. L. (1946). Other minds. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 20, 148–187.Google Scholar

Austin, J. L.(1950). Truth. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 24, 111–128. Repr. in J. L. Austin (1970). Philosophical Papers, 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 117–133. Repr. in J. L. Austin (1979). Philosophical Papers, 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 117–133.Google Scholar

Austin, J. L.(1956/1957). A Plea for Excuses. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 57(1),1–30. Repr. in J. L. Austin (1970). Philosophical Papers, 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 197–204.Google Scholar

Austin, J. L.(1962). How to Do Things with Words, 1955 William James Lectures. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

Austin, J. L.(1963). Performative-Constative. In Caton, C. E., ed., Philosophy and Ordinary Language. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press, pp. 22–54.Google Scholar

Austin, J. L.(1970a). Performative utterances. In J. L. Austin, Philosophical Papers, 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 233–252.Google Scholar

Austin, J. L.(1970b). Philosophical Papers, 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Austin, J. L.(1975). How to Do Things with Words, 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Avramides, A. (1989). Meaning and Mind: An Examination of a Gricean Account of Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Awodey, S. (2017). Carnap and the invariance of logical truth. Synthese, 194, 67–78.Google Scholar

Ayala, F. (2009). Darwin and the Scientific Method. PNAS, 106 (Supplement 1), 10033–10039.Google Scholar

Ayer, A. J. (1936). Language, Truth, and Logic. London: Victor Gollancz.Google Scholar

Ayer, A. J.(1946). Language, Truth and Logic, 2nd ed. London: Penguin; New York: Dover Publications.Google Scholar

Ayer, A. J.(1952). Negation. The Journal of Philosophy, 49, 797–815.Google Scholar

Azzouni, J. (2017). Ontology without Borders. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Bach, E. (1970). Problominalization. Linguistic Inquiry, 1, 121–122.Google Scholar

Bach, E.(1986a). Natural language metaphysics. In Marcus, R. Barcan, Dorn, G., and Weingartner, P., eds., Logic, Methodology Philosophy of Science VII. Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 573–595.Google Scholar

Bach, E.(1986b). The algebra of events. Linguistics and Philosophy, 9, 5–16.Google Scholar

Bach, E.(1989). Informal Lectures on Formal Semantics. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.Google Scholar

Bach, K. (1980). Actions are not events. Mind, 89(353), 114–120.Google Scholar

Bach, K.(1981). What’s in a name. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 59(4), 371–386.Google Scholar

Bach, K.(1987). Thought and Reference. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

Bach, K.(1994). Conversational impliciture. Mind and Language, 9, 124–162.Google Scholar

Bach, K.(1999a). The semantics–pragmatics distinction: What it is and why it matters. In Turner, K., ed., The Semantics/Pragmatics Interface from Different Points of View. Oxford: Elsevier, pp. 65–84.Google Scholar

Bach, K.(1999b). The myth of conventional implicature. Linguistics and Philosophy, 22(4), 327–366.Google Scholar

Bach, K.(2001). You don’t say? Synthese, 128 (1/2), 15–44. doi:10.1023/A:1010353722852.Google Scholar

Bach, K.(2004). Minding the gap. In Bianchi, C., ed., The Semantics/Pragmatics Distinction. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 27–43.Google Scholar

Bach, K.(2006a). The excluded middle: Semantic minimalism without minimal propositions. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 73(2), 435–442.Google Scholar

Bach, K.(2006b). The top 10 misconceptions about implicature. In Birner, B. J. and Ward, G., eds., Drawing the Boundaries of Meaning: Neo-Gricean Studies in Pragmatics and Semantics in Honor of Laurence R. Horn. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 21–30.Google Scholar

Bach, K.(2010). Impliciture vs. explicature: What’s the difference? In Soria, B. and Romero, E., eds., Explicit Communication: Essays on Robyn Carston’s Pragmatics. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 126–137.Google Scholar

Bach, K.(2018). Loaded words: On the semantics and pragmatics of slurs. In Sosa, D., ed., Bad Words: Philosophical Perspectives on Slurs. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 60–76.Google Scholar

Bach, K. and Harnish, R. M. (1979). Linguistic Communication and Speech Acts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Bacon, F. (2000). The New Organon, ed. Jardine, L. and Silverthorne, M.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Bacon, F.(2001). The Advancement of Learning, ed. Gould, S. J.. New York: Random House.Google Scholar

Baehr, J. (2011). The Inquiring Mind: On Intellectual Virtues and Virtue Epistemology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Baghramian, M. and Carter, A. J. (2018). Relativism. In E. N. Zalta, ed., The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/relativism/.Google Scholar

Baker, M. C. (1988). Incorporation: A Theory of Grammatical Function Changing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Baker, M. C.(1997). Thematic roles and syntactic structure. In Haegeman, L., ed., Elements of grammar: Handbook in Generative Syntax. Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 72–137.Google Scholar

Baker, M. C.(2006). Using Corpora in Discourse Analysis. London: Continuum.Google Scholar

Baker, P., Gabrielatos, C., KhosraviNik, M., Krzyżanowski, M., McEnery, A., and Wodak, R. (2008). A useful methodological synergy? Combining critical discourse analysis and corpus linguistics to examine discourses of refugees and asylum seekers in the UK press. Discourse and Society, 19, 273–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bakhtin, M. (1981). The Dialogic Imagination, ed. Holquist, M.. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar

Baldwin, J. M. (1928). “Negation” and “Negative.” In Dictionary of Philosophy and Psychology, Vol. II. New York: Macmillan, pp. 146–149.Google Scholar

Baldwin, T. (2006). Philosophy of language in the twentieth century. In Lepore, E. and Smith, B. C., eds., The Oxford Handbook of the Philosophy of Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 60–99.Google Scholar

Ball, B. (2014). Speech acts: Natural or normative kinds? Mind and Language, 29(3), 336–350.Google Scholar

Ball, D. and Rabern, , B., eds. (2018). The Science of Meaning: Essays on the Metatheory of Natural Language Semantics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Baltin, M. (1987). Do antecedent-contained deletions exist? Linguistic Inquiry, 18, 579–595.Google Scholar

Barbe, K. (1995). Irony in Context. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Barcan Marcus, R. (1961). Modalities and intensional languages. Synthese, 13(4), 303–22.Google Scholar

Barcan Marcus, R.(1975). Does the principle of substitutivity rest on a mistake? In Anderson, A. R., Barcan Marcus, R., and Martin, R. M., eds., The Logical Enterprise. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, pp. 31–38.Google Scholar

Barcan Marcus, R.(1986). Possibilia and possible worlds. Grazer Philosophische Studien, 25, 107–33. Repr. in R. Barcan Marcus (1993). Modalities. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 189–213.Google Scholar

Bar-Hillel, Y. (1954). Indexical expressions. Mind, 63, 359–379.Google Scholar

Barker, C. (2002). The dynamics of vagueness. Linguistics and Philosophy, 25(1), 1–36.Google Scholar

Barker, C.(2013). Negotiating taste. Inquiry, 56(2/3), 240–257.Google Scholar

Barker, C. and Jacobson, P., eds. (2007). Direct Compositionality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Bar-On, D. (2004). Speaking My Mind: Expression and Self-Knowledge. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Bar-On, D.(2013). Origins of meaning: Must we “go Gricean”? Mind and Language, 28(3), 342–375.Google Scholar

Barth, E. M. and Krabbe, E. C. W. (1982). From Axiom to Dialogue: A Philosophical Study of Logics and Argumentation. Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Barthes, R. (1970). L’Empire des signes, Geneva: Éditions d’Art Albert Skira.Google Scholar

Barwise, J. and Cooper, R. (1981). Generalized quantifiers and natural language. Linguistics and Philosophy, 4(2), 159–219.Google Scholar

Barwise, J. and Etchemendy, J. (1990). Information, infons, and inference. In Cooper, R., Mukai, K., and Perry, J., eds., Situation Theory and Its Applications, Vol. I. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 33–78.Google Scholar

Barwise, J. and Perry, J. (1983). Situations and Attitudes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Batisti, F. (2017). Linguistic relativity and its relation to analytic philosophy. Studia Semiotyczne, 31(2), 201–226.Google Scholar

Bavelas, J., Black, A., Chovil, N., and Mullett, J. (1990). Equivocal Communication. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar

Bayer, S. L. (1997). Confessions of a Lapsed Neo-Davidsonian: Events and Arguments in Compositional Semantics. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Bazzoni, A. (2016). Names and individuals. In Stalmaszczyk, P. and Fernández Moreno, L., eds., Philosophical Approaches to Proper Names (Studies in Philosophy of Language and Linguistics 1). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, pp. 123–146.Google Scholar

Bealer, G. (1982). Quality and Concept. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

Beall, J., Glanzberg, M., and Ripley, D. (2018). Formal Theories of Truth. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Beaney, M., ed. (1997). The Frege Reader. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Beardsley, M. C. (1958). Aesthetics: Problems in the Philosophy of Criticism. New York: Harcourt, Brace & Co.Google Scholar

Beardsley, M. C.(1981). Aesthetics: Problems in the Philosophy of Criticism, 2nd ed. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing Company.Google Scholar

Beaton, M. E. and Washington, H. B. (2015). Slurs and the indexical field: The pejoration and reclaiming of favelado “slum-dweller.” Language Sciences, 52, 12–21. doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2014.06.021.Google Scholar

Beaver, D. I. (1996). Presupposition. In van Benthem, J. and ter Meulen, A, eds., Handbook of Logic and Language. Amsterdam: North Holland, pp. 939–1008.Google Scholar

Beaver, D. I. and Condoravdi, C. (2007). On the logic of verbal modification. In Aloni, M., Dekker, P., and Roelofsen, F., eds., Proceedings of the 16th Amsterdam Colloquium. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam, pp. 3–9.Google Scholar

Beaver, D. I. and Geurts, B. (2014). Presupposition. In E. N. Zalta, ed., The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2014/entries/presupposition/.Google Scholar

Bedny, M., Dravida, S., and Saxe, R. (2014). Shindigs, brunches, and rodeos: The neural basis of event words. Cognitive, Affective and Behavioral Neuroscience, 14, 891–901.Google Scholar

Beebee, H. and Saabarton-Leary, N., eds. (2010). The Semantics and Metaphysics of Natural Kinds. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Begby, E. (2017). Language from the ground up: A study of Homesign communication. Erkenntnis, 82, 693–714Google Scholar

Benacerraf, P. (1965). On what numbers could not be. The Philosophical Review, 74, 47–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Benke, G. (2000). Diskursanalyse als sozialwissenschaftliche Untersuchungsmethode. SWS Rundschau, 2, 140–162.Google Scholar

Bennett, J. (1988). Events and Their Names. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

Benthem, J. van (1982). Later than late: On the logical origin of the temporal order. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 63(2), 193–203.Google Scholar

Benthem, J. van (1989). Logical constants across varying types. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, 30, 315–342.Google Scholar

Benton, M. and van Elswyk, P. (2019). Hedged assertion. In Goldberg, S., ed., The Oxford Handbook of Assertion. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 245–263.Google Scholar

Benveniste, E. (1966). Problèmes de linguistique générale, Vol. I. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar

Bergen, B. K. (2012). Louder Than Words: The New Science of How the Mind Makes Meaning. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar

Berger, A. (2002). Terms and Truth: Reference Direct and Anaphoric. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Bergmans, L., Burgess, J., Das Gupta, A., and de Swart, H. (2018). Philosophy of language. In Philosophical and Mathematical Logic (Springer Undergraduate Texts in Philosophy). Cham: Springer, pp. 329–378.https://doi.org/10.1007/978–3-030–03255-5_7.Google Scholar

Bergson, H. (1911). Creative Evolution, trans. A. Mitchell. New York: Modern Library.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Berman, S.-R. (1987). Situation-based semantics for adverbs of quantification. In Blevins, J. and Vainikka, A., eds., Studies in Semantics. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts, pp. 46–68.Google Scholar

Bermúdez, J. L. (2003). Thinking without Words. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Bernard, C. (1865). Introduction à l’étude de la médecine expérimentale, Paris: Éditions Garnier-Flammarion.Google Scholar

Bernárdez, E. (1999). Qué son las lenguas. Madrid: Alianza.Google Scholar

Bernstein, R. J. (2010). The Pragmatic Turn. Malden, MA and Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar

Berrendonner, A. (1981). Éléments de pragmatique linguistique. Paris: Minuit.Google Scholar

Bex, F., Grasso, F., Green, N., Paglieri, F., and Reed, C. (2017). Argument Technologies: Theory, Analysis & Applications. London: College Publications.Google Scholar

Bezuidenhout, A. (1997). Pragmatics, semantic underdetermination and the referential/attributive distinction. Mind, 106, 375–409.Google Scholar

Bezuidenhout, A.(2002). Truth-conditional pragmatics. Philosophical Perspectives, 16, 105–134.Google Scholar

Bezuidenhout, A.(2016). What properly belongs to grammar? A response to Lepore & Stone. Inquiry, 59(2), 175–194.Google Scholar

Bianchi, A. (2015a). Introduction: Open problems on reference. In. Bianchi, A., ed., On Reference. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 1–18.Google Scholar

Bianchi, A.ed. (2015b). On Reference. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bianchi, A. and Bonanini, A. (2014). Is there room for reference borrowing in Donnellan’s historical explanation theory? Linguistics and Philosophy, 37(3), 175–203.Google Scholar

Bianchi, C. (2013). Writing letters in the age of Grice. In Capone, A., Lo Piparo, F., and Carapezza, M., eds., Perspectives on Pragmatics and Philosophy. Cham: Springer, pp. 189–201.Google Scholar

Bianchi, C.(2014a). How to do things with (recorded) words. Philosophical Studies, 167, 485–495.Google Scholar

Bianchi, C.(2014b). Slurs and appropriation: An echoic account. Journal of Pragmatics, 66, 35–44. doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2014.02.009.Google Scholar

Bianchi, C.(2018). Slurs and perspectives. In Preyer, G., ed., Beyond Semantics and Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 187–198.Google Scholar

Bickerton, D. (1995). Language and Human Behavior. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Bickerton, D.(2009). Adam’s Tongue: How Humans Made Language, How Language Made Humans. Seattle: University of Washington Press.Google Scholar

Bierwisch, M. (1989). The semantics of gradation. In Bierwisch, M. and Lang, E., eds., Dimensional Adjectives. Berlin: Springer, pp. 71–261.Google Scholar

Bierwisch, M. and Lang, E., eds. (1989). Dimensional Adjectives: Grammatical Structure and Conceptual Interpretation. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar

Bilgrami, A. (1993). Norms and meaning. In Stoecker, R., ed., Reflecting Davidson. Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 121–144.Google Scholar

Bird, A. (2010). Discovering the essences of natural kinds. In Beebee, H. and Sabbarton-Leary, N., eds., The Semantics and Metaphysics of Natural Kinds. London: Routledge, pp. 125–136.Google Scholar

Bird, A. and Tobin, E. (2016). Natural kinds. In E. N. Zalta, ed., The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2016/entries/natural-kinds/.Google Scholar

Biro, J. and Siegel, H. (1992). Normativity, argumentation and an epistemic theory of fallacies. In van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., Blair, J. A., and Willard, C. A., eds., Argumentation illuminated. Amsterdam: Sic Sat, pp. 85–103.Google Scholar

Biro, J. and Siegel, H.(1995). Epistemic normativity, argumentation, and fallacies. In van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., Blair, J. A., and Willard, C. A., eds., Analysis and Evaluation: Proceedings of the Third ISSA Conference on Argumentation (University of Amsterdam, June 21–24, 1994). Vol. II. Amsterdam: Sic Sat, pp. 286–299.Google Scholar

Björklund, F., Björnsson, G., Eriksson, J., Olinder, R. F., and Strandberg, C. (2012). Recent work on motivational internalism. Analysis, 72(1), 124–137.Google Scholar

Black, M. (1944). The paradox of analysis. Mind, 53, 263–267.Google Scholar

Black, M.(1954/1955). Metaphor. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 55, 273–294.Google Scholar

Black, M.(1977). More about metaphor. Dialectica, 31(3/4), 431–457.Google Scholar

Black, M.(1979). How metaphors work: A reply to Donald Davidson. Critical Inquiry, 6(1), 131–143.Google Scholar

Blackburn, S. (1984a). Spreading the Word. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Blackburn, S.(1984b). The Individual Strikes Back. Synthese, 58, 281–302. Repr. in A. Miller and C. Wright, eds. (2002). Rule-Following and Meaning. Chesham: Acumen, pp. 28–44.Google Scholar

Blackburn, S.(1993). Essays in Quasi-realism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Blackburn, S.(1998). Ruling Passions: A Theory of Practical Reasoning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Blackburn, S. and Simmons, K., eds. (1999). Truth. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Blakemore, D. (2002). Relevance and Linguistic Meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Blakemore, D.(2015). Slurs and expletives: A case against a general account of expressive meaning. Language Sciences, 52, 22–35. doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2014.06.018.Google Scholar

Blanco Salgueiro, A. (2016). Neo-Whorfianism and the so-called “cognitive” theory of metaphor. In Stalmaszczyk, P., ed., From Philosophy of Fiction to Cognitive Poetics (Studies in Philosophy of Language and Linguistics 4). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, pp. 117–135.Google Scholar

Blanco Salgueiro, A.(2017). La relatividad lingüística (variaciones filosóficas). Madrid: Akal.Google Scholar

Blanco Salgueiro, A.(2018). Theories of reference and linguistic relativity. Organon F, 25(4), 539–563.Google Scholar

Blanshard, B. (1941), The Nature of Thought, Vol. II. New York: The Macmillan Company.Google Scholar

Blome-Tillmann, M. (2009). Knowledge and presuppositions. Mind, 118(470), 241–294.Google Scholar

Blommaert, J. and Bulcaen, C. (2000). Critical discourse analysis. Annual Review of Anthropology, 29, 447–466.Google Scholar

Bloom, P. (2004). Descartes’ Baby: How the Science of Child Development Explains What Makes Us Human. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar

Bobzien, S. (2003). Logic. In Inwood, B., ed., The Cambridge Companion to the Stoics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 85–123.Google Scholar

Bochenski, J. M. (1961). History of Formal Logic. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar

Boeckx, C. and Grohmann, K. K., eds. (2013). The Cambridge Handbook of Biolinguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Boeckx, C., Hornstein, N., and Nunes, J. (2010). Control as Movement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Boër, S. (1975). Proper names as predicates. Philosophical Studies, 27, 389–400.Google Scholar

Boethius (1978). De topicis differentiis, trans. E. Stump. Ithaca, NY and London: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar

Boghossian, P. (1989). The rule-following considerations. Mind, 98(392), 507–549. Repr. in A. Miller and C. Wright, eds. (2002). Rule-Following and Meaning. Chesham: Acumen, pp. 141–187.Google Scholar

Boghossian, P.(2003). Blind reasoning. The Aristotelian Society, 77, 225–248.Google Scholar

Boghossian, P.(2005). Is meaning normative? In Nimtz, C. and Beckermann, A., eds., Philosophy-Science-Scientific Philosophy: Main Lectures and Colloquia of GAP. 5, Fifth International Congress of the Society for Analytical Philosophy, Bielefeld, 2003. Paderborn: Mentis, pp. 205–218. Repr. in P. Boghossian (2008). Content and Justification. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 95–108.Google Scholar

Bogusławski, A. (1975). Measures are measures: In defence of the diversity of comparatives and positives. Linguistiche Berichte, 36, 1–9.Google Scholar

Bok, S. (1978). Lying: Moral Choice in Public and Private Life. New York: Random House.Google Scholar

Bok, S.(1983). Secrets: On the Ethics of Concealment and Revelation. New York: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar

Bolinger, D. (1965). The atomization of meaning. Language, 41, 555–573.Google Scholar

Bolinger, R. J. (2017). The pragmatics of slurs. Noûs, 51, 439–462. doi:10.1111/nous.12090.Google Scholar

Bolinger, R. J.(2020). Contested slurs. Grazer Philosophische Studien, 97(1), 11–30. doi.org/10.1163/18756735–09701003.Google Scholar

Bolzano, B. (1973). Theory of Science, ed. Berg, J. and trans. B. Terrell. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar

Bonardi, P. (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(5), 575–515.Google Scholar

Bonnay, D. (2014). Logical constants, or how to use invariance in order to complete the explication of logical consequence. Philosophy Compass, 9, 54–65.Google Scholar

Bordonaba Plou, D. (2017). Operadores de orden superior y predicados de gusto: Una aproximación expresivista. Granada: Universidad de Granada.Google Scholar

Borer, H. (2005a). Structuring Sense: In Name Only. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Borer, H.(2005b). Structuring Sense: The Normal Course of Events. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Borer, H.(2013). Structuring Sense: Taking Form. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Borg, E. (2004). Minimal Semantics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Borg, E.(2012). Pursuing Meaning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Borg, E.(2016a). Applied philosophy of language. In Coady, D., Brownlee, K., and Lippert-Rasmussen, K., eds., A Companion to Applied Philosophy. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 180–195.Google Scholar

Borg, E.(2016b). Exploding explicatures. Mind and Language, 31(3), 335–355. doi:10.1111/mila.12109.Google Scholar

Borg, E.(2016c). Finding meaning. The Linguist, 55, 22–24.Google Scholar

Borg, E.(2019). Explanatory roles for minimal content. Noûs, 53(3), 513–539. doi:10.1111/nous.12217.Google Scholar

Borg, E.(in press). Understanding implicatures. In Altshuler, D., ed., Linguistics Meets Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Borg, E. and Connolly, P. (in press). Strict and conversational linguistic liability: Some empirical observations. In Lepore, E. and Sosa, D., eds., Oxford Studies in Philosophy of Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Borg, E., Fisher, S. A., Hansen, N., Scarafone, A. and Shardimgaliev, M., eds. (in press). Applied philosophy of language. Special Issue. Ratio.Google Scholar

Borge, S. (2009). Conversational implicatures and cancellability. Acta Analytica, 24, 49–154.Google Scholar

Borges, J. L. (2013). The Last Interview and Other Conversations. Brooklyn and London: Melville House.Google Scholar

Boroditsky, L. (2001). Does language shape thought? Mandarin and English speakers’ conceptions of time. Cognitive Psychology, 43, 1–22.Google Scholar

Boroditsky, L.(2011). How languages construct time. In Dehaene, S. and Brannon, E., eds., Space, Time and Number in the Brain. Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 333–341.Google Scholar

Boroditsky, L. and Gaby, A. (2010). Remembrances of times east: Absolute spatial representations of time in an Australian Aboriginal community. Psychological Science, 21, 1635–1639.Google Scholar

Boroditsky, L. and Ramscar, M. (2002). The roles of body and mind in abstract thought. Psychological Science, 13, 185–189.Google Scholar

Bourdieu, P. (1992). Language and Symbolic Power. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar

Boyd, R. (1981). Scientific realism and naturalistic epistemology. In Asquith, P. and Giere, R., eds., PSA 1980, Vol. II. East Lansing, MI: Philosophy of Science Association, pp. 613–662.Google Scholar

Boyd, R.(1984). The current status of scientific realism. In Leplin, J., ed., Scientific Realism. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, pp. 41–82.Google Scholar

Bosanquet, B. (1888/1911). Logic, Vol. I. 2nd ed. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar

Bradley, F. H. (1883). Principles of Logic. London: Kegan Paul and Trench.Google Scholar

Brandom, R. (1994). Making It Explicit: Reasoning, Representing and Discursive Commitment. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Brandom, R.(2000). Articulating Reasons: An Introduction to Inferentialism. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Brandom, R.(2008). Between Saying and Doing: Towards an Analytic Pragmatism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Brasoveanu, A. (2013). Modified numerals as post-suppositions. Journal of Semantics, 30, 155–209.Google Scholar

Brasoveanu, A. and Rett, J. (2018). Evaluativity across adjective and construction types: An experimental study. Journal of Linguistics, 54(2), 263–329.Google Scholar

Bratman, M. (1999). Faces of Intention. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Braun, D. (1993). Empty names. Noûs, 27, 449–469.Google Scholar

Braun, D.(1998). Understanding belief reports. The Philosophical Review, 107, 555–595.Google Scholar

Braun, D.(2017). Indexicals. In E. N. Zalta, ed., The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/indexicals/.Google Scholar

Breeze, R. (2011). Critical Discourse Analysis and its critics. Pragmatics, 21, 493–525.Google Scholar

Breheny, R. (2006). Pragmatic analyses of anaphoric pronouns: Do things look better in 2-D? In García-Carpintero, M. and Macía, J., eds., Two-Dimensional Semantics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 22–37.Google Scholar

Brentano, F. (1995). Psychology from an Empirical Standpoint, ed. and trans. L. L. McAlister. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Brogaard, B. (2008). Moral contextualism and moral relativism. The Philosophical Quarterly, 58(232), 385–409.Google Scholar

Brogaard, B.(2012). Moral relativism and moral expressivism. The Southern Journal of Philosophy, 50(4), 538–556.Google Scholar

Bromberger, S. (1966). Why questions. In Colodny, R., ed., Mind and Cosmos: Essays in Contemporary Science and Philosophy. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press, pp. 75–100.Google Scholar

Brontsema, R. (2004). A queer revolution: Reconceptualizing the debate over linguistic reclamation. Colorado Research in Linguistics, 17, 1–17.Google Scholar

Bruni, L. (1987). The Humanism of Leonardo Bruni: Selected Texts, trans. and ed. G. Griffiths, J. Hankins, and D. Thompson. Binghamton, NY: SUNY Press.Google Scholar

Bryant, G. A. (2010). Prosodic contrasts in ironic speech. Discourse Processes, 47, 545–566.Google Scholar

Bryant, G. A. and Fox Tree, J. (2005). Is there an ironic tone of voice? Language and Speech, 48(3), 257–277.Google Scholar

Buehler, K. (1934). Sprachtheorie: Die Darstellungsfunktion der Sprache. Stuttgart: Fischer.Google Scholar

Buller, D. and Burgoon, J. (1994). Deception: Strategic and nonstrategic communication. In Daly, J. A. and Wiemann, J. M., eds., Strategic Interpersonal Communication. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 191–223.Google Scholar

Burge, T. (1973). Reference and proper names. The Journal of Philosophy, 70(14), 425–439.Google Scholar

Burge, T.(1979). Individualism and the mental. Midwest Studies in Philosophy, 4, 73–121. Repr. in T. Burge (2007). Foundations of Mind. Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp. 100–150.Google Scholar

Burge, T.(1989). Wherein is language social? In George, A., ed., Reflections on Chomsky. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 175–191.Google Scholar

Burge, T.(1992). Philosophy of language and mind: 1950–1990. The Philosophical Review, 101(1), 3–51.Google Scholar

Burgers, C., van Mulken, M., and Schellens, P. (2011). Finding irony: An introduction of the verbal irony procedure (VIP). Metaphor and Symbol, 26, 186–205.Google Scholar

Burgess, A. and Burgess, J. P. (2011). Truth. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Burgess, A. and Sherman, B. (2014a). Introduction: A plea for the metaphysics of meaning. In Burgess, A. and Sherman, B., eds., Metasemantics: New Essays on the Foundations of Meaning. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 1–16.Google Scholar

Burgess, A. and Sherman, B.eds. (2014b). Metasemantics: New Essays on the Foundations of Meaning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Burgess, J. (2005). Translating names. Analysis, 65(3), 196–205.Google Scholar

Burgess, J.(2008). Tarski’s Tort. In Burgess, J, Mathematics, Models, and Modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 149–168.Google Scholar

Burgess, J.(2009). Philosophical Logic. Princeton, NJ and Oxford: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Burgoon, J., Buller, D., Guerrero, L., Afifi, W., and Feldman, C. (1996). Interpersonal deception: XII. Information management dimensions underlying deceptive and truthful messages. Communication Monographs, 63(1), 50–69.Google Scholar

Burke, K. D. (1966). Language as Symbolic Action. Berkeley, CA and London: University of California Press.Google Scholar

Burke, K. D.(1969). A Grammar of Motives. Berkeley, CA and London: University of California Press.Google Scholar

Burnett, D. G. (2007). Trying Leviathan: The Nineteenth-Century New York Court Case that Put the Whale on Trial and Challenged the Order of Nature. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Burnett, H. (2017). Gradability in Natural Language: Logical and Grammatical Foundations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Burnett, H.(2020). A persona-based semantics for slurs. Grazer Philosophische Studien, 97(1), 31–62. doi.org/10.1163/18756735–09701004.Google Scholar

Bykvist, K. and Hattiangadi, A. (2007). Does thought imply ought? Analysis, 67, 277–285.Google Scholar

Bylinina, L. (2014). The Grammar of Standards: Judge-dependence, Purpose-relativity, and Comparison Classes in Degree Constructions. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar

Bylinina, L.(2017). Judge-dependence in degree constructions. Journal of Semantics, 34(2), 291–331.Google Scholar

Byrne, R. W. and Whiten, A., eds. (1988). Machiavellian Intelligence: Social Expertise and the Evolution of Intellect in Monkeys, Apes, and Humans. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

Caffi, C. (1984). Some remarks on illocution and metacommunication. Journal of Pragmatics, 8, 449–467.Google Scholar

Caffi, C.(1994). Metapragmatics. In Asher, R. E., ed., Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, Oxford: Pergamon Press, pp. 2461–2466. Rev. ed. repr. as C. Caffi (2006). Metapragmatics. In K. Brown, ed., Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, 2nd ed. Oxford: Elsevier, pp. 82–88.Google Scholar

Caffi, C.(2006). Metapragmatics. In Brown, K., ed., Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, 2nd ed. Oxford: Elsevier, pp. 82–88.Google Scholar

Caffi, C.(2016). Revisiting metapragmatics: “What are we talking about?” In Allan, K., Capone, A., and Kecskes, I., eds., Pragmemes and Theories of Language Use. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 799–821.Google Scholar

Cameron, M. and Stainton, R. J., eds. (2015). Linguistic Content: New Essays on the History of Philosophy of Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Camp, E. (2006). Contextualism, metaphor, and what is said. Mind and Language, 129, 280–309.Google Scholar

Camp, E.(2007). Prudent semantics meets wanton speech act pluralism. In Preyer, G. and Peter, G., eds., Context-Sensitivity and Semantic Minimalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 194–213.Google Scholar

Camp, E.(2012). Sarcasm, pretense, and the semantics/pragmatics distinction. Noûs, 46, 587–634.Google Scholar

Camp, E.(2013). Slurring perspectives. Analytic Philosophy, 54(3), 330–349. doi.org/10.1111/phib.12022.Google Scholar

Camp, E.(2018). A dual act analysis of slurs. In Sosa, D., ed., Bad Words: Philosophical Perspectives on Slurs. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 29–59.Google Scholar

Campbell, J. D. and Katz, A. N. (2012). Are there necessary conditions for inducing a sense of sarcastic irony? Discourse Processes, 49(6), 459–480.Google Scholar

Candau, J. (2003). El lenguaje natural de los olores y la hipótesis Sapir-Whorf. Revista de Antropología Social, 12, 243–259.Google Scholar

Candlish, S. and Wrisley, G. (2014). Private language. In E. N. Zalta, ed., The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2014/entries/private-language/.Google Scholar

Canfield, J. V. (1996). The community view. The Philosophical Review, 105(4), 469–488.Google Scholar

Cap, P. (2006). Legitimization in Political Discourse: A Cross-disciplinary Perspective on the Modern US War Rhetoric. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Press.Google Scholar

Cap, P.(2013). Proximization: The Pragmatics of Symbolic Distance Crossing. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Cap, P.(2017a). The Language of Fear: Communicating Threat in Public Discourse. Basingstoke: Palgrave.Google Scholar

Cap, P.(2017b). From “cultural unbelonging” to “terrorist risk”: Communicating threat in the Polish anti-immigration discourse. Critical Discourse Studies, 15, 285–302.Google Scholar

Cap, P. and Okulska, U., ed. (2013). Analyzing Genres in Political Communication: Theory and Practice. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Capaldi, N. (1993). Analytic philosophy and language. In Harré, R. and Harris, R., eds., Linguistics and Philosophy: The Controversial Interface. Oxford: Pergamon Press, pp. 45–107.Google Scholar

Caplan, B. (2006). On sense and direct reference. Philosophy Compass, 1(2), 171–85.Google Scholar

Capone, A. (2009). Are explicatures cancellable? Toward a theory of the speaker’s intentionality. Intercultural Pragmatics, 6(1), 55–83.Google Scholar

Cappelen, H. (2017). Why philosophers shouldn’t do semantics. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 8, 743–762.Google Scholar

Cappelen, H. and Hawthorne, J. (2009). Relativism and Monadic Truth. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Cappelen, H. and Lepore, E. (2002). Indexicality, binding, anaphora and a priori truth. Analysis, 62(4), 271–281. doi:10.1093/analys/62.4.271.Google Scholar

Cappelen, H. and Lepore, E.(2005). Insensitive Semantics: A Defense of Semantic Minimalism and Speech Act Pluralism. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Cappelen, H. and Lepore, E.(2006a). Precis of insensitive semantics. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 73(2), 425–434.Google Scholar

Cappelen, H. and Lepore, E.(2006b). Replies. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 73(2), 469–492. doi:10.1111/j.1933–1592.2006.tb00630.x.Google Scholar

Carlson, G. (1984). Thematic roles and their role in semantic interpretation. Linguistics, 22, 259–279.Google Scholar

Carlson, G.(1991). Natural kinds and common nouns. In von Stechow, A. and Wunderlich, D., eds., Semantics: An International Handbook of Contemporary Research. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, pp. 370–398.Google Scholar

Carlson, G. and Pelletier, F. J. (2002). The average American has 2.3 children. Journal of Semantics, 19, 73–104.Google Scholar

Carnap, R. (1931). Überwendung Der Metaphysik Durch Logische Analyse Der Sprache. Erkenntnis, 2(1), 219–241.Google Scholar

Carnap, R.(1935). Philosophy and Logical Syntax. London: Kegan Paul.Google Scholar

Carnap, R.(1937). The Logical Syntax of Language, trans. A. Smeathon. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar

Carnap, R.(1942). Introduction to Semantics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Carnap, R.(1947). Meaning and Necessity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Carnap, R.(1950). Empiricism, semantics, and ontology. Revue Internationale de Philosophie, 4(11), 20–40.Google Scholar

Carr, J. (2017). Deontic modals. In McPherson, T. and Plunkett, D., eds., The Routledge Handbook of Metaethics. London: Routledge, pp. 194–210.Google Scholar

Carroll, L. (1895). What the tortoise said to Achilles. Mind, 4, 278–280.Google Scholar

Carroll, N. (1988). Art, practice, and narrative. The Monist, 71(2), 140–156.Google Scholar

Carroll, N.(1990). The Philosophy of Horror: Or, Paradoxes of the Heart. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Carroll, N.(1992). Art, intention, and conversation. In Iseminger, G., ed., Intentions and Interpretations. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, pp. 97–131.Google Scholar

Carroll, N.(1993). Anglo-American and contemporary criticism: Intention and the hermeneutics of suspicion. Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 51(2), 245–252.Google Scholar

Carroll, N.(1998). Art, narrative, and moral understanding. In Levinson, J., ed., Aesthetics and Ethics: Essays at the Intersection. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 126–160.Google Scholar

Carroll, N.(2001a). Interpretation and intention: The debate between hypothetical and actual intentionalism. In Carroll, N., Beyond Aesthetics: Philosophical Essays. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 197–213.Google Scholar

Carroll, N.(2001b). On the narrative connection. In Carroll, N., Beyond Aesthetics: Philosophical Essays. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 118–133.Google Scholar

Carroll, N.(2002a). Andy Kaufman and the philosophy of interpretation. In Krausz, M., ed., Is There a Single Right Interpretation? University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press, pp. 319–344.Google Scholar

Carroll, N.(2002b). The wheel of virtue: Art, literature, and moral knowledge. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 60(1), 3–26.Google Scholar

Carroll, N.(2007). Narrative closure. Philosophical Studies, 135(1), 1–15.Google Scholar

Carroll, N.(2011). Art interpretation. British Journal of Aesthetics, 51(2), 117–135.Google Scholar

Carroll, N.(2013). Criticism and interpretation. Sztuka i Filozofia, 42, 7–20.Google Scholar

Carroll, N. and Gibson, J., eds. (2016). The Routledge Companion to Philosophy of Literature. New York and Milton Park: Routledge.Google Scholar

Carruthers, P. (2002). The cognitive functions of language. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 25, 657–674.Google Scholar

Carruthers, P. and Boucher, J., eds. (1998). Language and Thought: Interdisciplinary Themes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Carson, T. L. (2006). The definition of lying. Noûs, 40(2), 284–306.Google Scholar

Carson, T. L.(2010). Lying and Deception: Theory and Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Carson, T. L.(2016). Frankfurt and Cohen on bullshit, bullshiting, deception, lying and concern with the truth of what one says. Pragmatics and Cognition, 23(1), 53–67.Google Scholar

Carston, R. (1988). Implicature, explicature and truth-theoretic semantics. In Kempson, R., ed., Mental Representations: The Interface between Language and Reality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 155–181. Repr. in S. Davis, ed. (1991). Pragmatics: A Reader. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 33–51.Google Scholar

Carston, R. (2002). Thoughts and Utterances: The Pragmatics of Explicit Communication. Malden, MA, and London: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Carston, R.(2004). Relevance Theory and the saying/implicating distinction. In Horn, L. R. and Ward, G., eds., The Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 633–656.Google Scholar

Carston, R.(2008a). Review of E. Borg, 2004. Minimal Semantics. Clarendon Press. Mind and Language, 23(3), 359–367.Google Scholar

Carston, R.(2008b). Linguistic communication and the semantics–pragmatics distinction. Synthese, 165(3), 321–345.Google Scholar

Carston, R.(2010a). Explicit communication and “free” pragmatic enrichment. In Soria, B. and Romero, E., eds., Explicit Communication: Essays on Robyn Carston’s Pragmatics. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 217–285.Google Scholar

Carston, R.(2010b). Metaphor: Ad hoc concepts, literal meaning and mental images. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 110(3), 295–321.Google Scholar

Carston, R.(2013). Word meaning, what is said, and explicature. In Penco, C. and Domaneschi, F., eds., What Is Said and What Is Not. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 175–204.Google Scholar

Carston, R.(2016a). Pragmatics and semantics. In Huang, Y., ed., The Oxford Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 453–472.Google Scholar

Carston, R.(2016b). Linguistic conventions and the role of pragmatics: Review of E. Lepore & M. Stone’s 2014 “Imagination and Convention,” Oxford University Press. Mind and Language, 31(5), 613–625.Google Scholar

Carston, R.(2018). Figurative language, mental imagery, and pragmatics. Metaphor and Symbol, 33(3), 198–217.Google Scholar

Carston, R.(2019). Ad hoc concepts, polysemy and the lexicon. In Clark, B., Scott, K., and Carston, R., eds., Relevance, Pragmatics and Interpretation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 150–162.Google Scholar

Carston, R.(2021). Polysemy: Pragmatics and sense conventions. Mind and Language 36: 108–133.Google Scholar

Carston, R. and Hall, A. (2012). Implicature and explicature. In Schmid, H.-J., ed., Handbook of Pragmatics. Vol. IV: Cognitive Pragmatics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 47–84.Google Scholar

Carston, R. and Hall, A.(2017). Contextual effects on explicature: Optional pragmatics or optional syntax? International Review of Pragmatics, 9(1), 51–81.Google Scholar

Carter, R. (1976). Some linking regularities. In Levin, B. and Tenny, C., eds., On Linking: Papers by Richard Carter. Cambridge, MA: MIT Center for Cognitive Science, pp. 1–92.Google Scholar

Casasanto, D. (2008). Who’s afraid of the big bad whorf? Crosslinguistic differences in temporal language and thought. Language Learning, 58(1), 63–79.Google Scholar

Casasanto, D.(2016) Linguistic relativity. In Riemer, N., ed., Routledge Handbook of Semantics. New York: Routledge, pp. 158–174.Google Scholar

Casati, R. and Varzi, A. C., eds. (1996a). Events. Brookfield, VT: Dartmouth Publishing Company.Google Scholar

Casati, R. and Varzi, A. C.(1996b). Introduction. In Casati, R. and Varzi, A. C., eds., Events. Brookfield, VT: Dartmouth Publishing Company, pp. xi–xxxiii.Google Scholar

Casati, R. and Varzi, A. C.(2014). Events. In E. N. Zalta, ed., The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/events/.Google Scholar

Caso, R. and Lo Guercio, N. (2016). What bigots do say: A reply to DiFranco. Thought: A Journal of Philosophy, 5(4), 265–274.Google Scholar

Castañeda, H.-N. (1967a). Indicators and quasi-indicators. American Philosophical Quarterly, 4, 85–100. Repr. in H.-N. Castañeda (1989). Thinking, Language, and Experience. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, pp. 206–231.Google Scholar

Castañeda, H.-N.(1967b). Comments on D. Davidson’s “The logical form of action sentences.” In Rescher, N., ed., The Logic of Decision and Action. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press, pp. 104–112.Google Scholar

Castañeda, H.-N.(1968). On the logic of attributions of self-knowledge to others. The Journal of Philosophy, 65, 439–456.Google Scholar

Castañeda, H.-N.(1999). The Phenomeno-Logic of the I: Essays on Self-Consciousness, ed. Hart, J. and Kapitan, T.. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar

Castelfranchi, C. and Poggi, I. (1994). Lying as pretending to give information. In Parret, H., ed., Pretending to Communicate. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 276–291.Google Scholar

Caton, C. (1971). Overview. In Steinberg, D. and Jakobovits, L. (eds.), Semantics: An Interdisciplinary Reader in Philosophy, Linguistics and Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 3–13.Google Scholar

Castroviejo, E., McNally, L. and Sassoon, G. W., eds. (2018). The Semantics of Gradability, Vagueness, and Scale Structure: Experimental Perspectives. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar

Cepollaro, B. (2015). In defence of a presuppositional account of slurs. Language Sciences, 52, 36–45. doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2014.11.004.Google Scholar

Cepollaro, B.(2016). Building evaluation into language. Phenomenology and Mind, 11, 158–168.Google Scholar

Cepollaro, B.(2017). When evaluation changes: An echoic account of appropriation and variability. Journal of Pragmatics, 117, 29–40. doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2017.05.009.Google Scholar

Cepollaro, B.(2020). Slurs and Thick Terms: When Language Encodes Values. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar

Cepollaro, B. and Stojanovic, I. (2016). Hybrid evaluatives: In defense of a presuppositional account. Grazer Philosophische Studien, 93(3), 458–488.Google Scholar

Cepollaro, B. and Thommen, T. (2019). What’s wrong with truth-conditional accounts of slurs. Linguistics and Philosophy, 42, 333–347. doi.org/10.1007/s10988-018–9249-8.Google Scholar

Cepollaro, B. and Zeman, D., eds. (2020). Non-derogatory uses of slurs. Special issue. Grazer Philosophische Studien, 97(1).Google Scholar

Cepollaro, B., Sulpizio, S., and Bianchi, C. (2019) How bad is it to report a slur? An empirical investigation. Journal of Pragmatics, 146, 32–42.Google Scholar

Chalmers, D. (1996). The Conscious Mind. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Champollion, L. (2010). Cumulative readings of every do not provide evidence for events and thematic roles. In Aloni, M., Bastiaanse, H., de Jager, T., and Schulz, K., eds., Logic, Language and Meaning: Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Berlin: Springer, pp. 213–222.Google Scholar

Champollion, L.(2015). The interaction of compositional semantics and event semantics. Linguistics and Philosophy, 38, 31–66.Google Scholar

Chan, T., ed. (2013). The Aim of Belief. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Charlow, N. (2014a). The meaning of imperatives. Philosophy Compass, 9(8), 540–555.Google Scholar

Charlow, N.(2014b). The problem with the Frege–Geach problem. Philosophical Studies, 167(3), 635–665.Google Scholar

Charlow, N.(2015). Prospects for an expressivist theory of meaning. Philosophers’ Imprint, 15(23), 1–43.Google Scholar

Charteris-Black, J. (2004). Corpus Approaches to Critical Metaphor Analysis. Basingstoke: Palgrave.Google Scholar

Charteris-Black, J.(2005). Politicians and Rhetoric: The Persuasive Power of Metaphor. Basingstoke: Palgrave.Google Scholar

Chastain, C. (1975). Reference and context. In Gunderson, K., ed., Language, Mind, and Knowledge. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, pp. 194–269.Google Scholar

Chemla, E. (2009). An anti-introduction to presupposition. In P. Égré and G. Magri, eds., Presuppositions and Implicatures: Proceedings of the MIT-Paris Workshop, MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, 60, pp. 35–46.Google Scholar

Cheney, D. and Seyfarth, R. (1990). How Monkeys See the World. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Chierchia, G. (1989). Anaphora and attitudes de se. In Bartsch, R., van Bentham, J., and van Emde, P., eds., Language in Context. Dordrecht: Foris, pp. 1–31.Google Scholar

Chierchia, G.(1992). Anaphora and dynamic binding. Linguistics and Philosophy, 15, 111–183.Google Scholar

Chierchia, G.(2006). Broaden your views: Implicatures of domain widening and the “logicality” of language. Linguistic Inquiry, 37(4), 535–590.Google Scholar

Chierchia, G.(2013). Logic in Grammar: Polarity, Free Choice, and Intervention. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Chierchia, G.(in press). On being trivial: Logic vs. grammar. In Sagi, G. and Woods, J., eds., The Semantic Conception of Logic: Consequence, Invariance, and Meaning, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Chierchia, G. and McConnell-Ginet, S. (1990). Meaning and Grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Chilton, P. (2004). Analysing Political Discourse: Theory and Practice. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Chilton, P.(2005). Missing links in mainstream CDA: Modules, blends and the critical instinct. In Wodak, R. and Chilton, P., eds., A New Agenda in (Critical) Discourse Analysis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 19–51.Google Scholar

Chilton, P.(2014). Language, Space and Mind: The Conceptual Geometry of Linguistic Meaning, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Chisholm, R. (1963). Contrary-to-duty imperatives and deontic logic. Analysis, 24, 33–36.Google Scholar

Chisholm, R. and Feehan, T. (1977). The intent to deceive. The Journal of Philosophy, 74, 143–159.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic Structures. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N.(1964). Current issues in linguistic theory. In Fodor, J., J. and Katz, J., eds., The Structure of Language. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, pp. 50–118.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N.(1965). Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N.(1968). Language and Mind. New York: Harcourt, Brace & Co.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N.(1972). Language and Mind, expanded ed. New York: Harcourt, Brace & Co.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N.(1975). Logical Structure of Linguistic Theory. Written in 1955. New York: Plenum.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N.(1976a). Conditions on rules of grammar. Linguistic Analysis, 2, 303–351.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N.(1976b). Reflections on Language. London: Temple Smith.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N.(1977). Essays on Form and Interpretation. Amsterdam: Elsevier North Holland.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N.(1980). Rules and Representations. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N.(1981). Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N.(1986). Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origin, and Use. Westport, CT: Praeger.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N.(1995a). Language and nature. Mind, 104(413), 1–61.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N.(1995b). The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N.(2000a). New Horizons in the Study of Language and Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N.(2000b). Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Martin, R., Michaels, D., and Uriagereka, J., eds., Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 89–156.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N.(2000c). Language from an internalist perspective. In Chomsky, N., New Horizons in the Study of Language and Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 134–163.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N.(2000d). The Architecture of Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N.(2001). Derivation by Phase. In Kenstowicz, M., ed., Ken Hale: A Life in Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 1–52.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N.(2003). Replies. In Antony, L. M. and Hornstein, N., eds., Chomsky and His Critics. Malden, MA: Blackwell, pp. 255–328.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N.(2004a). Beyond explanatory adequacy. In Belletti, A., ed., Structures and Beyond. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 104–131.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N.(2004b). The Generative Enterprise Revisited: Discussions with Riny Huybregts, Henk van Riemsdijk, Naoki Fukui and Mihoko Zushi. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N.(2005). Three factors in language design. Linguistic Inquiry, 36, 1–22.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N.(2006). Language and Mind, 3rd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N.(2009). Cartesian Linguistics: A Chapter in the History of Rationalist Thought, 3rd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N.(2012). The Science of Language: Interviews with James McGilvray. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N.(2013a). Problems of projection. Lingua, 130, 33–49.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N.(2013b). Notes on denotation and denoting. In Caponigro, I. and Cecchetto, C., eds., From Grammar to Meaning: The Spontaneous Logicality of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 38–45.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N.(2014). Minimal recursion: Exploring the prospects. In Roeper, T. and Speas, M., eds., Recursion: Complexity in Cognition. Berlin: Springer, pp. 1–15.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N.(2015a). The Minimalist Program: 20th Anniversary Edition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N.(2015b). Problems of projection: Extensions. In Di Domenico, E., Hamann, C., and Matteini, S., eds., Structures, Strategies and Beyond: Studies in Honour of Adriana Belletti. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 1–16.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N.(2016). What Kind of Creatures Are We? New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N.(2017). Language architecture and its import for evolution. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 81(Part B), 295–300.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. and Lasnik, H. (1993). The theory of principles and parameters. In Jacobs, J., von Stechow, A., Sternefeld, W., and Vennemann, T., eds., Syntax: An International Handbook of Contemporary Research. Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 506–569.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N., Ott, D., and Gallego, Á. J. (2019). Generative grammar and the faculty of language: Insights, questions, and challenges. Special issue. Catalan Journal of Linguistics, 229–261.Google Scholar

Chouliaraki, L. and Fairclough, N. (1999). Discourse in Late Modernity. Rethinking Critical Discourse Analysis Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar

Chrisman, M. (2007). From epistemic contextualism to epistemic expressivism. Philosophical Studies, 135, 225–254.Google Scholar

Church, A. (1940). A formulation of the simple theory of types. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 5(2), 56–68.Google Scholar

Church, A.(1941). The Calculi of Lambda Conversion. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Church, A.(1944). Introduction to Mathematical Logic (Annals of Mathematic Studies, vol 13). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Church, A.(1946). A formulation of the logic of sense and denotation (abstract). The Journal of Symbolic Logic, 11, 31.Google Scholar

Church, A.(1996). Introduction to Mathematical Logic. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Cicero (2001). On the Ideal Orator, trans. J. M. May and J. Wisse. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Cicero(2006). On Invention, Best Kind of Orator, Topics, trans. H. M. Hubbell. Cambridge, MA and London: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Clark, A. (1998). Magic words: How language augments human computation. In Carruthers, P. and Boucher, J., eds., Language and Thought: Interdisciplinary Themes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 162–183.Google Scholar

Clark, A. and Chalmers, D. (1998). The extended mind. Analysis, 58(1), 7–19.Google Scholar

Clark, E. and Clark, H. (1979). When nouns surface as verbs. Language, 55, 767–811.Google Scholar

Clark, H. and Gerrig, R. (1984). On the pretense theory of irony. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 113, 121–126.Google Scholar

Clark, S. (2015). Vector space models of lexical meaning. In Lappin, S. and Fox, C., eds., The Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory, 2nd ed. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 493–522.Google Scholar

Coecke, B., Sadrzadeh, M., and Clark, S. (2010). Mathematical foundations for a compositional distributional model of meaning. Lambek Festschrift, 36. Special issue: Linguistic Analysis, eds. J. van Bentham, M. Moortgat and W. Buszkowski, 345–384.Google Scholar

Cohen, G. (2002). Deeper into bullshit. In Buss, S. and Overton, L., eds., Contours of Agency: Essays on Themes from Harry Frankfurt. London and Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 321–339.Google Scholar

Cohen, S. (1999). Contextualism, skepticism, and the structure of reasons. Philosophical Perspectives, 12, 57–89.Google Scholar

Cohnitz, D. and Estrada-González, L. (2019). An Introduction to the Philosophy of Logic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Coleman, L. and Kay, P. (1981). Prototype semantics: The English word lie. Language, 57(1), 26–44.Google Scholar

Collins, J. (2007). Syntax, more or less. Mind, 116(464), 805–850.Google Scholar

Collins, J.(2009). Methodology, not metaphysics: Against semantic externalism. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 83, 53–69.Google Scholar

Collins, J.(2011). The Unity of Linguistic Meaning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Collins, J.(2017a). The copredication argument. Inquiry, 60, 675–702.Google Scholar

Collins, J.(2017b). The semantics and ontology of the average American. Journal of Semantics, 34, 373–405.Google Scholar

Collins, J.(2018). Genericity sans gen. Mind and Language, 33, 34–64.Google Scholar

Collins, J.(2019). The dynamic lexicon in a truth-conditional framework; or how to have your cake and eat it. Inquiry, 62(3), 326–343. doi:10.1080/0020174X.2019.1579489.Google Scholar

Colonna Dahlman, R. (2013). Conversational implicatures are still cancellable. Acta Analytica, 28, 321–327.Google Scholar

Colonna Dahlman, R.(2019). Presuppositions, again. In Stalmaszczyk, P., ed., Philosophical Insights into Pragmatics. Berlin and Boston: De Gruyter, pp. 11–42.Google Scholar

Colston, H. (2000). On necessary conditions for verbal irony comprehension. Pragmatics and Cognition, 8(2), 277–324.Google Scholar

Colston, H. and O’Brien, J. (2000). Contrast and pragmatics in figurative language: Anything understatement can do, irony can do better. Journal of Pragmatics, 32, 1557–1583.Google Scholar

Comrie, B. (1976). Aspect. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Comrie, B.(1985). Tense. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Condillac, E. B. de (2001). An Essay on the Origin of Human Knowledge, trans. H. Aarsleff. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Cooper, D. E. (1986). Metaphor. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Cooper, R. (1979). The Interpretation of Pronouns. In Heny, R. and Schnelle, H., eds., Syntax and Semantics. Vol. X: Selections from the Third Groningen Round Table. New York: Academic Press, pp. 61–92.Google Scholar

Copeland, B. J. (2002). The genesis of possible worlds semantics. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 31, 99–137.Google Scholar

Copp, D. (2009). Toward a pluralist and teleological theory of normativity. Philosophy Issues, 19(1), 21–37.Google Scholar

Coppock, E. (2018). Outlook-based semantics. Linguistics and Philosophy, 41(2), 125–164.Google Scholar

Corazza, E. (2004). Reflecting the Mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Corredor, C. (2014). Pejoratives and social interaction. In Stalmaszczyk, P., ed., Issues in Philosophy of Language and Linguistics. Łódź: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego, pp. 39–55.Google Scholar

Costa, C. (2018). Philosophical Semantics: Reintegrating Theoretical Philosophy. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar

Cousens, C. (2020). Are ableist insults secretly slurs? Language Sciences, 77. doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2019.101252.Google Scholar