• Baghramian, M. (1998). “Why Conceptual Schemes? The Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 98, pp. 287306.
    Direct Link:
  • Child, W. (1994). “On the Dualism of Scheme and Content,” The Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society XCIV, pp. 5371.
  • Carnap, R. (1956). “Meaning Postulates,” reprinted in Meaning and Necessity, 2nd edn. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • Davidson, D. (1974). “On the Very Idea of a Conceptual Scheme,” the Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association 47, pp. 520. Reprinted in Davidson, 1984. Inquires Into Truth and Interpretation. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 183–198.
  • Davidson, D. (1983). “A Coherent Theory of Truth and Knowledge,” in D.Heinrich (ed.) Kant oder Hegel. Stuttgart: Klett Cotta, pp. 42838. Reprinted in Davidson, 2001. Subjective, Intersubjective, Objective. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 137–57.
  • Davidson, D. (1989). “The Myth of the Subjectivity,” in M.Krausz (ed.) Relativism: Interpretation and Confrontation. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press. Reprinted in Davidson, 2001, pp. 39–52.
  • Forster, M. (1998). “On the Very Idea of Denying the Existence of Radically Different Conceptual Schemes,” Inquiry 41, pp. 13385.
  • Fraassen, B. C. v. (1970). “On the Extension of Beth's semantics of Physical Theories,” Philosophy of Science 37, pp. 32539.
  • Goldberg, N. (2004). “E Pluribus Unum: Arguments against Conceptual Schemes and Empirical Content,” Southern Journal of Philosophy 42, pp. 41138.
  • Hacker, P. M. S. (1996). “On Davidson's Idea of a Conceptual Scheme,” The Philosophical Quarterly 46, pp. 289307.
  • Hacking, I. (1982). “Language, Truth and Reason,” in M.Hollis and S.Lukes (eds) Rationality and Relativism. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 4866.
  • Hacking, I. (1983). Representing and Intervening. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • Hacking, I. (1992). “ ‘Style’ for Historians and Philosophers,” Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science 23, pp. 120.
  • Henderson, D. (1994). “Conceptual Schemes After Davidson,” in G.Preyer et al. (eds) Language, Mind and Epistemology. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publisher, pp. 17197.
  • James, W. (1909). A Pluralistic Universe. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
  • Kuhn, T. (1991). “The Road Since Structure,” PSA 1990 2, pp. 313.
  • Kuhn, T. (1993). “Afterword,” in P.Horwich (ed.) World Change: Thomas Kuhn and the Nature of Science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 311341.
  • Lewis, C. I. (1929). Mind and the World Order. New York: Dover Publications.
  • Lynch, M. (1998). “Three Models of Conceptual Schemes,” Inquiry 40, pp. 40726.
  • McDowell, J. (1994). Mind and World. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  • Nevo, I. (2004). “In Defense of a Dogma: Davidson, languages, and Conceptual Schemes,” Ratio XVII, pp. 31228.
  • Quine, W. V. (1951). “Two Dogmas of Empiricism,” Philosophical Review 60, pp. 2043. Reprinted in Quine, 1980, From a Logical Point of View, 2nd edn. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, pp. 20–46.
  • Quine, W. V. (1981). “On the Very Idea of a Third Dogma.” Reprinted in Quine, 1981, Theories and Things. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, pp. 3942.
  • Rescher, N. (1980). “Conceptual Schemes”, in P.French, et al. (eds) Studies in Epistemology. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, pp. 323345.
  • Rorty, R. (1972). “The World Well Lost,” Journal of Philosophy 69, pp. 64965. Reprinted in Rorty, 1982, Consequences of Pragmatism. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, pp. 3–18.
  • Strawson, P. F. (1992). Analysis and Metaphysics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Whorf, B. L. (1956). Language, Thought and Reality: Selected Writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf,J. B.Carroll, ed. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Wittgenstein, L. (1969). On Certainty. New York: Harper Torchbooks.