David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Studia Logica 43 (1-2):117 - 129 (1984)
This paper argues for tlie claims that a) a natural language such as English is semanticaly closed b) semantic closure implies inconsistency. A corollary of these is that the semantics of English must be paraconsistent. The first part of the paper formulates a definition of semantic closure which applies to natural languages and shows that this implies inconsistency. The second section argues that English is semeantically closed. The preceding discussion is predicated on the assumption that there are no truth value gaps. The next section of the paper considers whether the possibility of these makes any difference to the substantive conclusions of the previous sections, and argues that it does not. The crux of the preceding arguments is that none of the consistent semantical accounts that have been offered for solving the semantical paradoxes is a semantic ofEnglish. The final section of the paper produces a general argument as to why this must always be the case.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
Saul A. Kripke (1975). Outline of a Theory of Truth. Journal of Philosophy 72 (19):690-716.
Tyler Burge (1979). Semantical Paradox. Journal of Philosophy 76 (4):169-198.
J. Michael Dunn (1976). Intuitive Semantics for First-Degree Entailments and 'Coupled Trees'. Philosophical Studies 29 (3):149-168.
Y. Bar-Hillel (1957). New Light on the Liar. Analysis 18 (1):1 - 6.
Bas C. van Fraassen (1968). Presupposition, Implication, and Self-Reference. Journal of Philosophy 65 (5):136-152.
Citations of this work BETA
J. Beall (2015). Trivializing Sentences and the Promise of Semantic Completeness. Analysis 75 (4):573-584.
JC Beall & Bradley Armour-Garb (2003). Should Deflationists Be Dialetheists? Noûs 37 (2):303–324.
Dominic Hyde (2001). Richard (Routley) Sylvan: Writings on Logic and Metaphysics. History and Philosophy of Logic 22 (4):181-205.
Similar books and articles
Douglas Patterson (2009). Inconsistency Theories of Semantic Paradox. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 79 (2):387 - 422.
Luciano Floridi (2005). Is Semantic Information Meaningful Data? Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 70 (2):351-370.
James L. White (1991). Knowledge and Deductive Closure. Synthese 86 (3):409 - 423.
Joachim Bromand (2002). Why Paraconsistent Logic Can Only Tell Half the Truth. Mind 111 (444):741-749.
Luciano Floridi (2004). Outline of a Theory of Strongly Semantic Information. Minds and Machines 14 (2):197-221.
Graham Priest (1999). Semantic Closure, Descriptions and Non-Triviality. Journal of Philosophical Logic 28 (6):549--558.
Sven Bernecker (2012). Sensitivity, Safety, and Closure. Acta Analytica 27 (4):367-381.
Berit Brogaard, Inconsistency Theories of Semantic Paradox, by Douglas Patterson. Philosopher's Digest.
Guido Melchior (2010). Knowledge-Closure and Inferential Knowledge. Croatian Journal of Philosophy 10 (30):259-285.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads35 ( #115,451 of 1,906,958 )
Recent downloads (6 months)4 ( #200,308 of 1,906,958 )
How can I increase my downloads?