[1. Antonelli A.G., “Non-monotonic Logic”, [in:] Edward N. Zalta (ed.), Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2010. <http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-nonmonotonic/>.]Search in Google Scholar
[2. Barwise, J. and S. Feferman (eds.), Model-theoretic Logics. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1987.]Search in Google Scholar
[3. Barwise, J., “Model-theoretic Logics: Background and Aims”, [in:] Jon Barwise and Solomon Feferman (eds.), Model-theoretic Logics, New York: Springer-Verlag, 1987, 4-23.]Search in Google Scholar
[4. Bates, J., “Etchemendy, Tarski, and Logical Consequence”, Southwest Philosophy Review 15.1 (1999): 47-54.10.5840/swphilreview199915119]Search in Google Scholar
[5. Beall, J.C. and G. Restall, “Logical Consequence”, [in:] Edward N. Zalta (ed.), Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2005. <http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logical-consequence/>.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199288403.003.0002]Search in Google Scholar
[6. Beall, J.C. and G. Restall, Logical Pluralism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2006.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199288403.001.0001]Search in Google Scholar
[7. Bellotti, L., “Tarski on Logical Notions”, Synthese 135 (2003): 401-13.10.1023/A:1023590504284]Search in Google Scholar
[8. Benthem, Van J., “Logical Constants Across Varying Types”, Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 30 (1989): 315-342.10.1305/ndjfl/1093635152]Search in Google Scholar
[9. Benthem, Van J., “Where is Logic Going, and Should It?” Topoi 25 (2006): 117-22.10.1007/s11245-006-0018-x]Search in Google Scholar
[10. Benthem, Van J., “Logic and the New Psychologims” Studia Logica 88 (2008): 67-84.10.1007/s11225-008-9101-1]Search in Google Scholar
[11. Benthem, Van J. and K. Doets, “Higher-order Logic”, [in:] Dov. M. Gabbay and F. Guenthner. (eds.), Handbook of Philosophical Logic. 2nd ed. Vol. 1. Dordrecht: Reidel, 2001, 189-243.]Search in Google Scholar
[12. Béziau, J.-Y. “Universal Logic”, [in:] T. Childers and O. Majer (eds.), Logica'94: Proceedings of the 8th International Symposium. Prague: Filosofia, 1994, 73-93.]Search in Google Scholar
[13. Béziau, J.-Y. (ed). Logica Universalis: Towards a General Theory of Logic. Basel: Birkhäuser Verlag, 2005. (2nd ed. 2007).10.1007/b137041]Search in Google Scholar
[14. Blanchette, P. A. “Logical Consequence”, [in:] Lou Goble (ed.), The Blackwell Guide to Philosophical Logic. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 2001, 115-35.]Search in Google Scholar
[15. Bonnay, D., “Logicality and Invariance”, Bulletin of Symbolic Logic 14.1 (2008): 29-68.10.2178/bsl/1208358843]Search in Google Scholar
[16. Bonnay, D. and D. Westerståhl, “Consequence mining: constants versus consequence relations”, Journal of Philosophical Logic 41.4 (2012): 671-709.10.1007/s10992-012-9234-6]Search in Google Scholar
[17. Boolos, G., “On Second-order Logic”, Journal of Philosophy 72 (1975): 509-27.10.2307/2025179]Search in Google Scholar
[18. Brown D.J. and R. Suszko, “Abstract Logics”, Dissertationes Mathematicae 102 (1973): 7-41.]Search in Google Scholar
[19. Carnielli, W. A., M. E. Coniglio, D. M. Gabbay, P. Gouveia and C. Sernadas, Analysis and Synthesis of Logics: How to Cut and Paste Reasoning Systems. Dordrecht: Springer, 2008.]Search in Google Scholar
[20. Carnielli, W.A. and M.E. Coniglio, “Combining Logics”, [in:] Edward N. Zalta (ed.), Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2010. <http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-combining/>.]Search in Google Scholar
[21. Casanovas, E., “Logical Operations and Invariance”, Journal of Philosophical Logic 36 (2007): 33-60.10.1007/s10992-006-9034-y]Search in Google Scholar
[22. Chagrov, A. and M. Zakharyaschev, Modal Logic. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997.]Search in Google Scholar
[23. Chang, C. and H.J. Keisler, Model Theory. 3rd ed. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 1990.]Search in Google Scholar
[24. Corcoran, J., “Conceptual Structure of Classical Logic”, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 33 (1972): 25-47.10.2307/2106718]Search in Google Scholar
[25. Corcoran, J., and J.M. Sagüillo, “The Absence of Multiple Universes of Discourse in the 1936 Tarski Consequence-Definition Paper”, History and Philosophy of Logic 32.4 (2011): 359-74.10.1080/01445340.2011.577145]Search in Google Scholar
[26. Da Costa, N.C.A. and D. Krause, “Schrödinger logics”, Studia Logica 53.4 (1994): 533-50.10.1007/BF01057649]Search in Google Scholar
[27. Ebbinghaus, H.-D., “Extended Logics: The General Framework”, [in:] Jon Barwise and Solomon Feferman (eds.), Model-theoretic Logics, New York: Springer-Verlag, 1987, 25-76.]Search in Google Scholar
[28. Edwards, J., “Reduction and Tarski's Definition of Logical Consequence”, Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 44 (2003): 49-62.10.1305/ndjfl/1082637614]Search in Google Scholar
[29. Engel, P., “Logic, Reasoning and the Logical Constants”, Croatian Journal of Philosophy VI.17 (2006): 219-35.]Search in Google Scholar
[30. Etchemendy, J., The Concept of Logical Consequence. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1990 (2nd ed. in 1999).]Search in Google Scholar
[31. Etchemendy, J., “Reflections on Consequence”, [in:] D. Patterson (ed.), New Essays on Tarski and Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008, 263-99.]Search in Google Scholar
[32. Feferman, S., “Logic, Logics, and Logicism.” Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 40 (1999): 31-54.10.1305/ndjfl/1039096304]Search in Google Scholar
[33. Feferman, S., “What kind of logic is “Independence Friendly” logic?” [in:] Randall E. Auxier and Lewis E. Hahn (eds.), The Philosophy of Jaakko Hintikka. Library of Living Philosophers. Open Court, 2006, 453-69.]Search in Google Scholar
[34. Feferman, S., “Set-theoretical Invariance Criteria for Logicality”, Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 51.1 (2010): 3-20.10.1215/00294527-2010-002]Search in Google Scholar
[35. Field, H., “Pluralism in Logic”, The Review of Symbolic Logic 2.2 (2009): 343-59.10.1017/S1755020309090182]Search in Google Scholar
[36. Field, H., “What is the Normative Role of Logic?” The Proceedings of the Aristotelean Society 83.1 (2009): 251-268.10.1111/j.1467-8349.2009.00181.x]Search in Google Scholar
[37. Frege, G., Begriffsschrift, eine der arithmetischen nachgebildete Formelsprache des reinen Denkens. Halle a. S.: Louis Nebert. Trans. as “Concept Script, a formal language of pure thought modelled upon that of arithmetic”, by S. Bauer-Mengelberg in Jean van Heijenoort (ed.), From Frege to Gödel: A Source Book in Mathematical Logic, 1879-1931, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1967, 1-83.]Search in Google Scholar
[38. Frege, G., Basic Laws of Arithmetic. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1967.]Search in Google Scholar
[39. Gabbay, D.M. (ed.), What is a Logical System? Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994 (and New York, 1995).]Search in Google Scholar
[40. Gabbay, D.M. and F. Guenthner (eds.), Handbook of Philosophical Logic. 1st ed. 4 vols. Dordrecht: Reidel, 1983-1987.10.1007/978-94-009-7066-3]Search in Google Scholar
[41. Gabbay, D.M. and F. Guenthner (eds.), Handbook of Philosophical Logic. 2nd ed. 17 vols. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 2001-2013.10.1007/978-94-017-0452-6]Search in Google Scholar
[42. Gainfs, B. R., “Foundations of fuzzy reasoning”, Int. J. Man-Machine Studies 8 (1976): 623-68. 10.1016/S0020-7373(76)80027-2]Search in Google Scholar
[43. Gamut, L. T. F., Logic, Language, and Meaning, Vol. 2: Intensional Logic and Logical Grammar, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1991.10.7208/chicago/9780226791708.001.0001]Search in Google Scholar
[44. Gorbunov, I.A. and M.N. Rybakov, “Continuum Classes of Logic”, Logical Investigations [Logicheskie issledovania] 14 (2007): 131-151 (in Russian).]Search in Google Scholar
[45. Gómez-Torrente, M., “Tarski on Logical Consequence”, Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 37 (1996): 125-51.10.1305/ndjfl/1040067321]Search in Google Scholar
[46. Gómez-Torrente, M., “The Problem of Logical Constants”, Bulletin of Symbolic Logic 8 (2002): 1-37.10.2178/bsl/1182353851]Search in Google Scholar
[47. Gómez-Torrente, M., “Rereading Tarski on Logical Consequence”, Review of Symbolic Logic 2 (2009): 249-97.10.1017/S1755020309090200]Search in Google Scholar
[48. Groarke, L., “Informal Logic” [in:] Edward N. Zalta (ed.), Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2011. <http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-informal/>.]Search in Google Scholar
[49. Haack, S., Deviant Logic, Fuzzy Logic: Beyond the Formalism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996.]Search in Google Scholar
[50. Hacking, I., “What is logic?” The Journal of Philosophy 76.6 (1979): 285-319. (Reprinted in Dov M. Gabbay (ed.), What is a Logical System? Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994, 1-33).]Search in Google Scholar
[51. Hanson, W.H., “Ray on Tarski on Logical Consequence”, Journal of Philosophical Logic 28.6 (1999): 605-16.10.1023/A:1004649130370]Search in Google Scholar
[52. Harman, G., Change in View. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1986.]Search in Google Scholar
[53. Harman, G., “Internal Critique: A Logic is not a Theory of Reasoning and a Theory of Reasoning is not a Logic” [in:] D. M. Gabbay, R. H. Johnson, H. J. Ohlbach, and J. Woods (eds.), Handbook of the Logic of Argument and Inference: The Turn Towards the Practical. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2002, 171-86.]Search in Google Scholar
[54. Hintikka, J., “What is Elementary Logic? Independence-Friendly Logic as the True Core Area of Logic” [in:] K. Gavroglu, J.J. Stachel, and M.W. Wartofsky (eds.), Physics, Philosophy and the Scientific Community. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1995, 301-26.]Search in Google Scholar
[55. Hintikka, J., “A Revolution in the Foundations of Mathematics?” Synthese 111 (1997): 155-70.10.1023/A:1004970403579]Search in Google Scholar
[56. Hintikka, J., “Rationality, Logic and Their Limits” [in:] Vladislav Lektorsky and Abdusalam Guseynov (eds.), Rationality and its Limits. Moscow: Institute of Philosophy, RAS, 2012, 21-31.]Search in Google Scholar
[57. Hintikka, J. and G. Sandu, “A Revolution in Logic?” Nordic Journal of Philosophical Logic” 1.2 (1996): 169-83.]Search in Google Scholar
[58. Hintikka, J. and G. Sandu, “What is Logic?” [in:] Dale Jacquette (ed.), Philosophy of Logic. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2007. 13-40.]Search in Google Scholar
[59. Hodes, H.T., “On the sense and Reference of a Logical Constant”, Philosophical Quarterly 54 (2004): 134-65.10.1111/j.0031-8094.2004.00345.x]Search in Google Scholar
[60. Hodges, W., “Elementary Predicate Logic” [in:] Dov. M. Gabbay and Franz Guenthner (eds.), Handbook of Philosophical Logic. 2nd ed. Vol. 1. Dordrecht: Reidel, 2001, 1-129.]Search in Google Scholar
[61. Hodges, W., “What is Logic?” [in:] Rusudan Asatiani et al. (eds.), Proceedings of the Fifth Tbilisi Symposium on Language, Logic and Computation. ILLC, University of Amsterdam, 2004, 3-10.]Search in Google Scholar
[62. Hodges, W., “The Scope and Limits of Logic” [in:] Dale Jacquette (ed.), Philosophy of Logic. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2007. 41-64.]Search in Google Scholar
[63. Jané, I., “What Is Tarski's Common Concept of Consequence?” Bulletin of Symbolic Logic 12 (2006): 1-42.10.2178/bsl/1140640942]Search in Google Scholar
[64. Jankov, V.A., “Construction of the sequence strongly independent superintuitionistic propositional calculus”, Reports of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR 181.1 (1968): 33-34 (in Russian).]Search in Google Scholar
[65. Jeffery, R., Formal Logic: its Scope and its Limits. 3rd ed. McGraw Hill, 1990.]Search in Google Scholar
[66. Karpenko, A.S., Logic on the Boundary of Millenia”, Logical Investigations [Logicheskie issledovania] 7 (2000): 7-60 (in Russian).]Search in Google Scholar
[67. Karpenko, A.S., “Subject of Logic in the Light of the Main Trends of its Development”, Logical Investigations [Logicheskie issledovania] 11 (2004): 149-171 (in Russian).]Search in Google Scholar
[68. Karpenko, A.S., “Modern Study in Philosophical Logic: Worldwide Level and Russian Science”, Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric 14.27 (2008): 35-71.]Search in Google Scholar
[69. Keenan, E.L. and J. Stavi, “A semantic Characterization of Natural Language Determiners”, Linguistic and Philosophy 9 (1986): 253-326.10.1007/BF00630273]Search in Google Scholar
[70. Koons, R., “Defeasible Reasoning” [in:] Edward N. Zalta (ed.), Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2013. <http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/reasoning-defeasible/>. ]Search in Google Scholar
[71. Lambek, J., “What is a Deductive System?” [in:] Dov M. Gabbay (ed.), What is a Logical System? Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994, 141-59.]Search in Google Scholar
[72. Leitgeb, H. (ed.), Special Issue: Psychologism in Logic? Studia Logica 88.1 (2008).10.1007/s11225-008-9097-6]Search in Google Scholar
[73. Lindenbaum, A. and A. Tarski, “On the Limitations of the Means of Expression of Deductive Theories”. Trans. of Lindenbaum and Tarski 1935 by J.H. Woodger in Tarski, A., Logic, Semantics, Metamatematics. 2nd ed. Indianapolis: Hacket Publishing, 1983, 384-92.]Search in Google Scholar
[74. Lindström, P., “On extensions of Elementary Logic”, Theoria 35 (1969): 1-11.10.1111/j.1755-2567.1969.tb00356.x]Search in Google Scholar
[75. Lönning, J.T., “Plurals and Collectivity” [in:] Johan van Benthem and Alice ter Meulen (eds.), Handbook of Logic and Language. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 1997, 1009-1053.]Search in Google Scholar
[76. MacFarlane, J., “Logical Constants” [in:] Edward N. Zalta (ed.), Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2009. <http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logical-constants/>.]Search in Google Scholar
[77. Mancosu, P., “Tarski on Models and Logical Consequence” [in:] J. Ferreirós and J.J. Gray (eds.), The Architecture of Modern Mathematics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006, 209-37.]Search in Google Scholar
[78. Mancosu, P., “Fixed-versus Variable-domain Interpretations of Tarski’s Account of Logical Consequence”, Philosophy Compas 5.9 (2010): 745-759.10.1111/j.1747-9991.2010.00324.x]Search in Google Scholar
[79. Manktelow, K.I. and D.E. Over, Inference and Uderstanding: A Philosophical and Psychological Perspective. London: Routledge, 1990.]Search in Google Scholar
[80. Mann, A.L., G. Sandu, and M. Sevenster, Independence-Friendly Logic: A Game-Theoretic Approach. Cambridge University Press, 2011.10.1017/CBO9780511981418]Search in Google Scholar
[81. Manzano, M., Extensions of First Order Logic. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1996.]Search in Google Scholar
[82. Markov, A.A., Elements of Mathematical Logic. Moscow: Moscow State University, 1984 (in Russian).]Search in Google Scholar
[83. Mautner, F. I., “An Extension of Klein's Erlanger Program: Logic as Invariant-Theory”, American Journal of Mathematics 68 (1946): 345-84.10.2307/2371821]Search in Google Scholar
[84. McCarthy, T., “The Idea of a Logical Constant”, Journal of Philosophy 78 (1981): 499-523.10.2307/2026088]Search in Google Scholar
[85. McCarthy, T., “Modality, Invariance, and Logical Truth”, Journal of Philosophical Logic 16 (1987): 423-43.10.1007/BF00431187]Search in Google Scholar
[86. McGee, Van, “Two Problems with Tarski's Theory of Consequence”, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 92 (1992): 273-92.10.1093/aristotelian/92.1.273]Search in Google Scholar
[87. McGee, Van, “Logical Operations.” Journal of Philosophical Logic 25 (1996): 567-80.10.1007/BF00265253]Search in Google Scholar
[88. McGee, Van, “Tarski's Staggering Existential Assumptions”, Synthese 142 (2004): 371-87.10.1007/s11229-005-3721-z]Search in Google Scholar
[89. Mckeon, M.W., The Concept of Logical Consequence: An Introduction to Philosophical Logic. Peter Lang Publishing, 2010.10.3726/978-1-4539-0041-3]Search in Google Scholar
[90. Mendelson, E., Introduction to Mathematical Logic. 4th ed. Chapman & Hall/CRC, 1997.]Search in Google Scholar
[91. Mostowski, A., “On a Generalization of Quantifiers.” Fundamenta Mathematicae 44 (1957): 12-36.10.4064/fm-44-1-12-36]Search in Google Scholar
[92. Peacocke, C., “What is a Logical Constant?” Journal of Philosophy 73 (1976): 221-241.10.2307/2025420]Search in Google Scholar
[93. Peacocke, C., “Understanding Logical Constants: A Realist's Account.” Proceedings of the British Academy 73 (1987): 153-200.]Search in Google Scholar
[94. Priest, G., An Introduction to Non-Classical Logic: From If to Is. 2nd rev. ed. Cambrigde University Press, 2008.10.1017/CBO9780511801174]Search in Google Scholar
[95. Prior, A.N., Time and Modality. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1957.]Search in Google Scholar
[96. Quine, W.V., Philosophy of Logic. 2nd ed. Harvard University Press, 1986.]Search in Google Scholar
[97. Rasiowa, H., “O pewnym fragmencie implikacyjnego rachunku zdań”, Studia Logica 3 (1955): 208-226.10.1007/BF02067260]Search in Google Scholar
[98. Ray, G., “Logical Consequence: a Defense of Tarski”, Journal of Philosophical Logic 25 (1996): 617-77.10.1007/BF00265256]Search in Google Scholar
[99. Rossberg, M., “First-Order Logic, Second-Order Logic, and Completeness” [in:] V. Hendricks et al. (eds.), First-Order Logic Revisited. Berlin: Logos-Verlag, 2004, 303-21.]Search in Google Scholar
[100. Russell, G., “Logical Pluralism” [in:] Edward N. Zalta (ed.), Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2013. <http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logical-pluralism/>.]Search in Google Scholar
[101. Rusnock P., and M. Burke, “Etchemendy and Bolzano on Logical Consequence”, History and Philosophy of Logic 31.1 (2011): 3-29.10.1080/01445340903445063]Search in Google Scholar
[102. Sagüillo, J.M., “Logical Consequence Revisited”, Bulletin of Symbolic Logic 3 (1997): 216-41.10.2307/421014]Search in Google Scholar
[103. Seay, G. and S. Nuccetelli, How to Think Logically. 2nd ed. Boston: Pearson, 2012.]Search in Google Scholar
[104. Shalack, V.I., “Semiotic Foundations of Logic”, Logical Investigations 19 (2013): 226-37.10.21146/2074-1472-2013-19-0-225-237]Search in Google Scholar
[105. Shapiro, S. (ed.), The Limits of Logic. Aldershot: Dartmouth, 1996. ]Search in Google Scholar
[106. Shapiro, S., “Logical Consequence: Models and Modality” [in:] Matthias Schirn (ed.), The Philosophy of Mathematics Today. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998, 131-56 (2nd ed. in 2003).]Search in Google Scholar
[107. Shapiro, S., Foundations without Foundationalism: A Case for Second-order Logic. 2nd ed. Oxford University Press, 2000.10.1093/0198250290.001.0001]Search in Google Scholar
[108. Shapiro, S., “Logical Consequence, Proof Theory, and Model Theory” [in:] Stewart Shapiro (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Mathematics and Logic. Oxford University Press, USA, 2005, 651-70.10.1093/0195148770.003.0021]Search in Google Scholar
[109. Sher, G., The Bounds of Logic. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1991.]Search in Google Scholar
[110. Sher, G., “Did Tarski Commit ‘Tarski's Fallacy’?” Journal of Symbolic Logic 61 (1996): 653-86.10.2307/2275681]Search in Google Scholar
[111. Sher, G., “The Formal-Structural View of Logical Consequence”, The Philosophical Review 110.2 (2001): 241-61.10.1215/00318108-110-2-241]Search in Google Scholar
[112. Sher, G., “Tarski's Thesis” [in:] Ed. Douglas Patterson (ed.), New Essays on Tarski and Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008, 300-39.]Search in Google Scholar
[113. Schumann A., “A Novel Tendency in Philosophical Logic”, Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric 14.27 (2008): 73-100.]Search in Google Scholar
[114. Simons, P. M., “Bolzano, Tarski, and the Limits of Logic”, Philosophia Naturalis 24 (1988): 378-405.]Search in Google Scholar
[115. Stenning, K. and M. van Lambalgen, Human Reasoning and Cognitive Science. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2012.]Search in Google Scholar
[116. Straßburger, L., “What is a Logic, and What is a Proof” [in:] Jean-Yves Béziau (ed.) Logica Universalis: Towards a General Theory of Logic. Basel: Birkhäuser Verlag, 2005, 135-45.]Search in Google Scholar
[117. Suber, P., A Bibliography of Non-Standard Logics, 2002. <http://legacy.earlham.edu/~peters/courses/logsys/nonstbib.htm>.]Search in Google Scholar
[118. Tarski, A., “Fundamentale Begriffe der Methodologie der deduktiven Wissenschaften” I, Monatshefte für Mathenatik und Physik 37.1 (1930): 361-404. Trans: “Fundamental concepts of the methodology of the deductive sciences” [in:] Logic, Semantics, Metamatematics. 2nd ed. Indianapolis: Hacket Publishing, 1983, 60-109.]Search in Google Scholar
[119. Tarski, A., “On the Concept of Logical Consequence” [in:] A. Tarski, Logic, Semantics, Metamatematics. 2nd ed. Indianapolis: Hacket Publishing, 1983. 409-20.]Search in Google Scholar
[120. Tarski, A., “What are Logical Notions?” History and Philosophy of Logic 7 (1986): 143-54.10.1080/01445348608837096]Search in Google Scholar
[121. Tarski, A., “On the Concept of Following Logically”, History and Philosophy of Logic 23 (2002): 155-96.10.1080/0144534021000036683]Search in Google Scholar
[122. Tharp, L., “Which logic is the right logic?” Synthese 31 (1975): 1-21.10.1007/BF00869469]Search in Google Scholar
[123. Tulenheimo, T., “Independence Friendly Logic” [in:] Edward N. Zalta (ed.), Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2009. <http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-if/>.]Search in Google Scholar
[124. Wang, H., “What is logic?” The Monist 77.3 (1994): 261-77.10.5840/monist199477312]Search in Google Scholar
[125. Warmbrōd, K., “Logical Constants”, Mind 108.431 (1999): 503-38.10.1093/mind/108.431.503]Search in Google Scholar
[126. Wason, P.C., “Reasoning” [in:] B.M. Foss (ed.), New Horizons in Psychology. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1966. 135-51.]Search in Google Scholar
[127. Woleński, J., “Logical Consequence and the Limits of First-Order Logic”, Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric 4.17 (2001): 21-40. ]Search in Google Scholar