Synthese 183 (S1):33-58 (2011)
|Abstract||This paper aims to develop the implications of logical expressivism for a theory of dialogue coherence. I proceed in three steps. Firstly, certain structural properties of cooperative dialogue are identified. Secondly, I describe a variant of the multi-agent natural deduction calculus that I introduced in Piwek (J Logic Lang Inf 16(4):403–421, 2007 ) and demonstrate how it accounts for the aforementioned structures. Thirdly, I examine how the aforementioned system can be used to formalise an expressivist account of logical vocabulary that is inspired by Brandom (Making it explicit: reasoning, representing, and discursive commitment, 1994 ; Articulating reasons: an introduction to inferentialism, 2000 ). This account conceives of the logical vocabulary as a tool which allows speakers to describe the inferential practices which underlie their language use, i.e., it allows them to make those practices explicit. The rewards of this exercise are twofold: (1) We obtain a more precise account of logical expressivism which can be defended more effectively against the critique that such accounts lead to cultural relativism. (2) The formalised distinction between engaging in a practice and expressing it, opens the way for a revision of the theory of dialogue coherence. This revision eliminates the need for logically complex formulae to account for certain structural properties of cooperative dialogue|
|Keywords||natural deduction dialogue inference logical expressivism agent communication|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Paul Piwek (2007). Meaning and Dialogue Coherence: A Proof-Theoretic Investigation. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 16 (4).
David Lauer (2012). Expressivism and the Layer Cake Picture of Discursive Practice. Philosophia 40 (1):55-73.
Charlie Kurth (2011). Logic for Morals, Morals From Logic. Philosophical Studies 155 (2):161-180.
Mark Lance (2001). The Logical Structure of Linguistic Commitment III Brandomian Scorekeeping and Incompatibility. Journal of Philosophical Logic 30 (5):439-464.
Matthew Chrisman (2010). Expressivism, Inferentialism, and the Theory of Meaning. In Michael Brady (ed.), New Waves in Metaethics. Palgrave-Macmillan.
Catherine Legg (forthcoming). What is a Logical Diagram? In Sun-Joo Shin & Amirouche Moktefi (eds.), Visual Reasoning with Diagrams. Springer.
Benjamin Schnieder (2010). Expressivism Concerning Epistemic Modals. Philosophical Quarterly 60 (240):601-615.
Robert B. Brandom (1994). Making It Explicit: Reasoning, Representing, and Discursive Commitment. Harvard University Press.
Christos Kyriacou (2012). Habits-Expressivism About Epistemic Justification. Philosophical Papers 41 (2):209 - 237.
Florian Steinberger (2011). Why Conclusions Should Remain Single. Journal of Philosophical Logic 40 (3):333-355.
Klemens Kappel (2010). Expressivism About Knowledge and the Value of Knowledge. Acta Analytica 25 (2):175-194.
Vladimír Svoboda & Jaroslav Peregrin (forthcoming). Logical Form and Reflective Equilibrium. Synthese.
Matthew Chrisman (2012). Epistemic Expressivism. Philosophy Compass 7 (2):118-126.
James E. McClellan (1988). Logical Pragmatism and Dialectical Materialism: The Beginning of Dialogue. Studies in East European Thought 35 (1).
Added to index2011-10-11
Total downloads16 ( #75,663 of 556,803 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #39,010 of 556,803 )
How can I increase my downloads?