Online research in philosophy

Let R be an epistemic rule of the simplest type: "Accept sentence s!" Assume that R is a basic rule we actually follow: Our accepting the sentence cannot be explained by our following more fundamental rules of sentence-acceptance. Assume furthermore that we feel rationally obliged to follow R; that is, we all agree on the correctness of the epistemic norm N which says: We ought to accept s.

The form of the sentence, as it is understood in contemporary semantics and linguistics, is functional. This paper interprets the metaphors in which Frege shows what the functional sentence means, arguing that Frege's sentence is neither an adequate translation of natural language nor of use in feminist theorizing.

Paul M. Pietroski, University of Maryland For any sentence of a natural language, we can ask the following questions: what is its meaning; what is its syntactic structure; and how is its meaning related to its syntactic structure? Attending to these questions, as they apply to sentences that provide evidence for Davidsonian event analyses, suggests that we reconsider some traditional views about how the syntax of a natural sentence is related to its meaning.

If, relative to a context, what a sentence says is necessarily true, then what it says must be so. If, relative to a context, what a sentence says is possible, then what it says could be true. Following natural philosophical usage, it would thus seem clear that in assessing an occurrence of a sentence for possibility or necessity, one is assessing what is said by that occurrence. In this paper, I argue that natural philosophical usage misleads here. In assessing an occurrence of a sentence for possibility or necessity, one is not assessing the modal status of the proposition expressed by that occurrence of the sentence.

Functions of type n are characteristic functions on n-ary relations. In Beyond the Frege Boundary [6], Keenan established their importance for natural language semantics, by showing that natural language has many examples of irreducible type n functions, where he called a function of type n reducible if it can be represented as a composition of functions of type 1 . We will give a normal form theorem for functions of type n , and use this to show that natural language has many examples of irreducible type n functions in a much stronger sense, where we take a function to be reducible if it can be represented as a composition of functions of lower types.

Predicate logic has proved a very useful tool for the expression of theories of natural language semantics. Hurford's suggestion that predicate–argument structures mirror certain properties of the human sensorimotor architecture can be seen as an explanation of why this is so. Although I support this view, I think that the correspondences that Hurford draws between linguistic and sensorimotor structures not only involve natural language semantics, but include some elements of natural language syntax as well.

I introduce a formal language called the language of informational independence (IL-language, for short) that extends an ordinary first-order language in a natural way. This language is interpreted in terms of semantical games of imperfect information. In this language, one can define two negations: (i) strong or dual negation, and (ii) weak or contradictory negation. The latter negation, unlike the former, can occur only sentence-initially. Then I argue that, to a certain extent, the two negations match the distinction existing in natural languages between sentential and constituent negation. As a corollary, I derive the fact that there are no mechanical rules for forming the contradictory negation of an English sentence.

Functions of type n are characteristic functions on n-ary relations. In Beyond the Frege Boundary [6], Keenan established their importance for natural language semantics, by showing that natural language has many examples of irreducible type n functions, where he called a function of type n reducible if it can be represented as a composition of functions of type 1 . We will give a normal form theorem for functions of type n , and use this to show that natural language has many examples of irreducible type n functions in a much stronger sense, where we take a function to be reducible if it can be represented as a composition of functions of lower types.

Douglas Patterson argues that the best way to respond to the semantic paradoxes that arise in natural language is to take natural language semantics to be (explosively) inconsistent. According to Patterson, to understand a natural language is to share with others cognition of a false semantic theory. Patterson’s main argument runs as follows. English is expressively rich. So, the first sentence occurring in this review could be.

The paper is concerned with negation in artificial and natural languages. "Negation" is an ambiguous word. It can mean three different things: An operation(negating), an operator (a sign of negation), the result of an operation. The threethings, however, are intimately linked. An operation such as negation, is realizedthrough an operator of negation, i.e. consists in adding a symbol of negation to an entity to obtain an entity of the same type; and which operation it is dependson what it applies to and on what results from its application.I argue that negation is not an operation on linguistic acts but rather anoperation on the objects of linguistic acts, namely sentences. And I assume that the negation of a sentence is a sentence that contradicts it. If so, the negation of a sentence may be obtained, in case the sentence is molecular, by applying the operation of negation not to the sentence itself but to a constituent sentence. To put it in a succinct and paradoxically sounding way we could say that in order to negate a sentence it is sufficient but not necessary to negate it.However that negation applies to sentences is true only for artificial languages, in which the sign of negation is a monadic sentential connective. In natural language, negation applies to expressions other than sentences, namely word sand non-sentential phrases. Still words and not sentential phrases are interesting and valuable only as ultimate or immediate constituents of sentences, as a means of saying (something that can be true or false) and the concern with negation is ultimately the concern with the negation of sentences. So the problem is what sub-sentential and non sentential expressions negation should apply to in order to obtain the negation of the containing sentence. The standard answer is that the negation of a natural language sentence is equivalent to the negation of its predicate. Yet, I argue, predicate negation is necessary but not sufficient, due to the existence of molecular sentences.Finally I notice that if to apply negation to an artificial sentence is to put the negation sign in front of it, to negate the predicate of a natural language sentencemay or may not be to put the negation sign in front of it.