•  38
    Replies
    Noûs 34 (s1): 321-343. 2000.
  •  526
    Belief ascription
    Journal of Philosophy 89 (10): 499-521. 1992.
  •  231
    Précis of the things we mean (review)
    Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 73 (1). 2003.
    In The Things We Mean I argue that there exist such things as the things we mean and believe, and that they are what I call pleonastic propositions. The first two chapters offer an initial motivation and articulation of the theory of pleonastic propositions, and of pleonastic entities generally. The remaining six chapters bring that theory to bear on issues in the theory of content: the existence and nature of meanings; knowledge of meaning; the meaning relation and compositional semantics; the …Read more
  •  343
    The things we mean
    Oxford University Press. 2003.
    Stephen Schiffer presents a groundbreaking account of meaning and belief, and shows how it can illuminate a range of crucial problems regarding language, mind, knowledge, and ontology. He introduces the new doctrine of 'pleonastic propositions' to explain what the things we mean and believe are. He discusses the relation between semantic and psychological facts, on the one hand, and physical facts, on the other; vagueness and indeterminacy; moral truth; conditionals; and the role of propositiona…Read more
  •  237
    Amazing Knowledge
    Journal of Philosophy 99 (4): 200-202. 2002.
  •  177
    The language-of-thought relation and its implications
    Philosophical Studies 76 (2-3): 263-85. 1994.
  •  2
    Knowledge of meaning
    In Alex Barber (ed.), Epistemology of language, Oxford University Press. 2003.
  •  57
    Truth and the theory of content
    In Herman Parret & Jacques Bouveresse (eds.), Meaning and Understanding, De Gruyter. pp. 204-222. 1981.
  •  50
  •  68
    Replies
    Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 73 (2): 469-492. 2007.
    We are in the curious position of disagreeing with Bach about what exactly we disagree about. As we see it, his characterization of our disagreement introduces largely irrelevant terminological issues; and these in turn cover up the fact that he simply hasn't replied to our central criticism. We start with two failed attempts to characterize the disagreement, and then move on to what is central.