Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Property theory: The type-free approachv. the church approach

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.


  1. Aczel, P. (1980), “Frege Structures and the Notions of Proposition, Truth and Set,”The Kleene Symposium, J. Barwise, H. J. Keister, and K. Kunen, eds., Amsterdam: North Holland, pp. 31–59.

  2. Aczel, P. (1989), “Algebraic Semantics for Intensional Logics I,” in Chierchiaet al. (1989), pp. 17–46.

  3. Anderson, C. Anthony (1980), “Some New Axioms for the Logic of Sense and Denotation: Alternative (0),”Noûs 14, pp. 217–234.

  4. Anderson, C. Anthony (1984) “General Intensional Logic,”Handbook of Philosophical Logic, vol. 2, D. Gabbay and F. Guenther, eds., Dordrecht: D. Reidel, pp. 355–385.

  5. Anderson, C. Anthony (1987), “Bealer'sQuality and Concept,”Journal of Philosophical Logic 16, pp. 115–164.

  6. Armstrong, D. (1978),Universals and Scientific Realism, 2 vols., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  7. Armstrong, D. (1983),What is a Law of Nature?, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  8. Barwise, J.and J. Perry (1983),Situations and Attitudes, Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.

  9. Bealer G. (1979), “Theories of Properties, Relations, and Propositions,”The Journal of Philosophy 76, pp. 643–648.

  10. Bealer, G. (1982),Quality and Concept, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Paperback edition, 1983.

  11. Bealer, G. (1983), “Completeness in the Theory of Properties, Relations, and Propositions,”The Journal of Symbolic Logic 48, pp. 415–426.

  12. Bealer, G. (1989a), “Type-free Fine-grained Intensionality,” in G. Chierchiaet al. (1989), pp. 177–230.

  13. Bealer, G. (1989b), “On the Identification of Properties and Propositional Functions,”Linguistics and Philosphy 12, pp. 1–14.

  14. Bealer, G. (1993), “A Solution to Frege's Puzzle,”Philosophical Perspectives 7, pp. 17–60

  15. Bealer, G. (1995), “General and Hyper-fine-grained Intensional Logic,”Noûs, forthcoming.

  16. Bealer, G. and U. Mönnich (1989), “Property Theories,” D. Gabbay and F. Guenther (eds.),Handbook of Philosophical Logic, vol. 4, Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 133–251.

  17. Burge, T. (1975), “Knowledge and Convention,”The Philosophical Review 84, pp. 249–55.

  18. Burge, T. (1978), “Belief and Synonymy,”The Journal of Philosophy 75, pp. 119–38.

  19. Burge, T. (1979a), “Individualism and the Mental,”Midwest Studies in Philosophy 4, pp. 73–122.

  20. Burge, T. (1979b), “Semantical Paradox,”The Journal of Philosophy 76, pp. 169–98.

  21. Chierchia, G. and R. Turner, (1988), “Semantics and Property Theory,”Linguistics and Philosphy 11, pp. 261–302.

  22. Chierchia, G., B. Partee, and R. Turner (1989),Property Theories, Type Theories, and Semantics, Volume I: Foundational Issues, Dordrecht: Kluwer.

  23. Church, A. (1951), “A Formulation of the Logic of Sense and Denotation,” in Paul Henleet al., eds.,Structure, Method, and Meaning, Essays in Honor of Henry M. Scheffer, New York: Liberal Arts, pp. 3–24.

  24. Church, A. (1954), “Intensional Isomorphism and Identity of Belief,”Philosophical Studies 5, pp. 65–73.

  25. Church, A. (1973), “Outline of a Revised Formulation of the Logic of Sense and Denotation (Part I),”Noûs 7, pp. 24–33.

  26. Church, A. (1974), “Outline of a Revised Formulation of the Logic of Sense and Denotation (Part II),”Noûs 8, pp. 135–156.

  27. Donnellan, K. (1970), “Proper Names and Identifying Descriptions,”Synthese 21, pp. 335–338.

  28. Dretske, F. (1977), “Laws of Nature,”Philosophy of Science 44, pp. 248–68.

  29. Dunn, M. (1990), “Relevant Predication 2: Intrinsic Properties and Internal Relations,”Philosophical Studies 60, pp. 177–206.

  30. Evans, G. (1977a), “Pronouns, Quantifiers, and Relative Clauses (I),”Canadian Journal of Philosophy 7, pp. 467–536.

  31. Evans, G. (1977b), “Pronouns, Quantifiers, and Relative Clauses (II),”Canadian Journal of Philosophy 7, pp. 777–97.

  32. Evans, G. (1982),The Varieties of Reference, edited by McDowell, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  33. Feferman, S. (1975), “Non-Extensioal Type-Free Theories of Partial Operations and Classifications,” inProof Theory Symposium, eds., A. Dold and B. Eckmann, Berlin: pp. 73–118.

  34. Feferman, S. (1984), “Toward Useful Type-free Theories,”The Journal of Symbolic Logic 49, pp. 75–111.

  35. Fine, K. (1980), “First-order Modal Theories — II Propositions,”Studio Logica 39, 159–202.

  36. Fitch, F. (1948), “An Extension of Basic Logic,”The Journal of Symbolic Logic 13, pp. 95–106.

  37. Fitch, F. (1963), “The System CΔ of Combinatory Logic,”The Journal of Symbolic Logic 28, pp. 87–97.

  38. Fitch, F. (1980), “A Consistent Combinatory Logic with an Inverse to Equality,”The Journal of Symbolic Logic 64, pp. 529–43.

  39. Gaifman, H. (1992), “Pointers to Truth,”The Journal of Philosophy 89, pp. 223–61.

  40. Gilmore, P. (1974), “The Consistency of Partial Set Theory Without Extensionality,”Proceedings of Symposia in Pure Mathematics 8, part II, pp. 147–53.

  41. Grice, P. (1969), “Vacuous Names,” in D. Davidson and J. Hintikka, eds.,Words and Objections, Dordrecht: Reidel, pp. 118–45.

  42. Gupta, A. (1982), “Truth and Paradox,”Journal of Philosophical Logic 11, pp. 1–60.

  43. Jubier, M. (1989), “On Properties and Property Theory,” in G. Chierchiaet al. (1989), pp. 159–176.

  44. Kripke, S. (1972), “Naming and Necessity,” inSemantics of Natural Language, D. Davidson and G. Harman, eds., Dordrecht: D. Reidel, pp. 253–355 and 763–9.

  45. Kripke, S. (1975), “Outline of a Theory of Truth,”The Journal of Philosophy 72, pp. 690–716.

  46. Lewis, D. (1983), “New Work for a Theory of Universals,”Australasian Journal of Philosophy 61, pp. 343–77.

  47. Martin, R. and P. Woodruff (1975), “On Representing ‘True-in-L’ in L,”Philosophia 5, pp. 213–17.

  48. Martin, R. (1984),Recent Essays on Truth and the Liar Paradox, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  49. Mates, B. (1950), “Synonymity,”University of California Publications in Philosophy 25, 201–26.

  50. Mates, B. (1983),Skeptical Essays. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

  51. McDonald, B. (1992),Towards a Theory of Meaningfulness and Truth: An Introduction to Variational Semantics, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Colorado at Boulder.

  52. McGee, V. (1991),Truth, Vagueness, and Paradox: An Essay on the Logic of Truth, Indianapolis: Hackett.

  53. Menzel, C. (1986), “A Complete Type-free ‘Second-order’ Logic and Its Philosophical Foundations,”Technical Report No. CSLI-86-40, Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information Publications.

  54. Mönnich, U. (1983), “Toward a Calculus of Concepts as a Semantical Metalanguage,” R. Bäuerle, C. Schwarze, and A. von Stechow, eds.,Meaning, Use, and Interpretation of Language, Berlin: W. de Gruyter, pp. 342–60.

  55. Montague, R. (1973), “The Proper Treatment of Quantification in English,” in J. Hintikka, J. Moravcsik, and P. Suppes, eds.,Approaches to Natural Language: Proceedings of the 1970 Stanford Workshop on Grammar and Semantics, Dordrecht: Reidel, pp. 221–42.

  56. Parsons, C. (1974), “The Liar Paradox,”Journal of Philosophical Logic 3, pp. 381–412.

  57. Parsons, T. (1980),Nonexistent Objects, New Haven: Yale University Press.

  58. Prior, A. (1963), “Is the Concept of Referential Opacity Really Necessary?”Acta Philosophica Fennica 16, pp. 189–98.

  59. Putnam, H. (1954), “Synonymity and the Analysis of Belief Sentences,”Analysis 14, pp. 114–22.

  60. Putnam, H. (1970), “On Properties,” inEssays in Honor of Carl G. Hempel, N. Rescher,et al., eds., Dordrecht: D. Reidel, pp. 109–35.

  61. Quine, W. V. O. (1937), “New Foundations for Mathematical Logic,”American Mathematical Monthly 44, pp. 70–80.

  62. Quine, W. V. O. (1963),Set Theory and Its Logic, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

  63. Reinhardt, W. (1986), “Some Remarks on Extending and Interpreting Theories with a Partial Predicate for Truth,”Journal of Philosophical Logic 15, pp. 219–51.

  64. Salmon, N. (1986),Frege's Puzzle, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

  65. Schiffer, S. (1987),Remnants of Meaning, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

  66. Schiffer, S. (1990), “The Mode-of-Presentation Problem,” inPropositional Attitudes, C. Anderson,et al., eds., Stanford: CSLI Publications, pp. 249–268.

  67. Sharvy, R. (1969), “Things,”The Monist 53, pp. 488–504.

  68. Shoemaker, S. (1980), “Causality and Properties,” inTime and Cause, P. van Inwagen, ed., Dordrecht: D. Reidel, pp. 109–35.

  69. Soames, S. (1989), “Direct Reference and Propositional Attitudes,” inThemes from Kaplan, J. Almog,et al., eds., New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 393–419.

  70. Swoyer, C. (1982), “The Nature of Natural Laws,”Australasian Journal of Philosophy 60, pp. 203–23.

  71. Tooley, M. (1977), “The Nature of Laws,”Canadian Journal of Philosophy 7, pp. 667–98.

  72. Tooley, M. (1987),Causation: A Realist Approach, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  73. Turner, R. (1987), “A Theory of Properties,”The Journal of Symbolic Logic 52, pp. 455–72.

  74. Turner, R. (1989), “Two Issues in the Foundations of Semantic Theory,” in Chierchiaet al., pp. 63–84.

  75. Zalta, E. (1983),Abstract Objects: An Introduction to Axiomatic Metaphysics, Dordrecht: D. Reidel.

  76. Zalta, E. (1988),Intensional Logic and the Metaphysics of Intentionality, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Download references

Author information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bealer, G. Property theory: The type-free approachv. the church approach. J Philos Logic 23, 139–171 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01050341

Download citation


  • Property Theory