Iffication, Preiffication, Qualiffication, Reiffication, and Deiffication.

Bulletin of Symbolic Logic 14 (4):435-6 (2008)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Iffication, Preiffication, Qualiffication, Reiffication, and Deiffication. Roughly, iffication is the speech-act in which—by appending a suitable if-clause—the speaker qualifies a previous statement. The clause following if is called the qualiffication. In many cases, the intention is to retract part of the previous statement—called the preiffication. I can retract part of “I will buy three” by appending “if I have money”. This initial study focuses on logical relations among propositional contents of speech-acts—not their full conversational implicatures, which will be treated elsewhere. The modified statement—called the iffication—is never stronger than the preiffication. A degenerate iffication is one logically equivalent to its preiffication. There are limiting cases of degenerate iffications. In one, the qualiffication is tautological, as “I will buy three if three is three”. In another, the negation of the qualiffication implies the preiffication, as “I will buy three if I will not buy three”. Reiffication is iffication of an iffication. “I will buy three if I have money” is reifficated by appending “if there are three left”. Deiffication is the speech-act in which—by appending a suitable and-clause—the effect of an iffication is cancelled so that the result implies the preiffication. “I will buy three if I have money” is deifficated by appending “and I have money”. All further examples come from standard (one-sorted, tenseless, non-modal) first-order arithmetic. All theorems are about first-order arithmetic propositions. An easy theorem, hinted above, is that an iffication is degenerate if and only if the negation of the qualiffication implies the preiffication. The iffication of a conjunction using one of the conjuncts as qualiffication need not imply the other conjunct: “Two is an even square if two is square” does not imply “Two is even”. END OF PRINTED ABSTRACT. Some find that the last statement provides a surprise in logic. https://www.academia.edu/s/a5a4386b75?source=link Acknowledgements: Robert Barnes, William Frank, Amanda Hicks, David Hitchcock, Leonard Jacuzzo, Edward Keenan, Mary Mulhern, Frango Nabrasa, and Roberto Torretti.

Links

PhilArchive

External links

  • This entry has no external links. Add one.
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Superlative quantifiers and meta-speech acts.Ariel Cohen & Manfred Krifka - 2014 - Linguistics and Philosophy 37 (1):41-90.
Communication, Cooperation and Conflict.Steffen Borge - 2012 - ProtoSociology 29:223-241.
Evidential scalar implicatures.Martina Faller - 2012 - Linguistics and Philosophy 35 (4):285-312.
Surprises in logic.John Corcoran & William Frank - 2013 - Bulletin of Symbolic Logic 19 (3):253.
An illocutionary logical explanation of the liar paradox.John T. Kearns - 2007 - History and Philosophy of Logic 28 (1):31-66.
Propositional logic.Kevin C. Klement - 2004 - Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Innocent implicatures.Alexander Dinges - 2015 - Journal of Pragmatics 87:54-63.
Curry, Yablo and duality.Roy T. Cook - 2009 - Analysis 69 (4):612-620.
The Rejection of the Proposition.Rolando M. Gripaldo - 2008 - Proceedings of the Xxii World Congress of Philosophy 13 (1):53-64.

Analytics

Added to PP
2015-12-02

Downloads
278 (#70,094)

6 months
47 (#85,115)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

John Corcoran
PhD: Johns Hopkins University; Last affiliation: University at Buffalo

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references