Erkenntnis 15 (3):343 - 347 (1980)
|Abstract||The significance of the semantical paradoxes for natural languages is examined. If Tarski’s reflections on the issue are correct, English is inconsistent. Paul Ziff responds to Tarskian reflections by arguing to the conclusion that no natural language is or can be inconsistent. The authors reject Ziff’s argument, but they defend something similar to its conclusion: no language, natural or otherwise, is or can be inconsistent in the way that Tarski holds languages capable of formulating the Epimenides are inconsistent.|
|Keywords||Paul Ziff Tarski liar|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Philip Hugly & Charles Sayward (1980). Tarski and Proper Classes. Analysis 40 (4):6-11.
Douglas Patterson (2007). Inconsistency Theories: The Significance of Semantic Ascent. Inquiry 50 (6):575-589.
Dale Jacquette (2010). Circularity or Lacunae in Tarski's Truth-Schemata. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 19 (3).
Paul Ziff (1974). The Number of English Sentences. Foundations of Language 11 (1):519--32.
Paul Ziff & Dale Jamieson (eds.) (1994). Language, Mind, and Art: Essays in Appreciation and Analysis in Honor of Paul Ziff. Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Greg Frost-Arnold (2004). Was Tarski's Theory of Truth Motivated by Physicalism? History and Philosophy of Logic 25 (4):265-280.
Greg Ray (2003). Tarski and the Metalinguistic Liar. Philosophical Studies 115 (1):55 - 80.
Arianna Betti (2004). Lesniewski's Early Liar, Tarski and Natural Language. Annals of Pure and Applied Logic 127 (1-3):267-287.
Douglas Eden Patterson (2006). Tarski, the Liar, and Inconsistent Languages. The Monist 89 (1):150-177.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads8 ( #124,608 of 556,888 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #64,931 of 556,888 )
How can I increase my downloads?