Journal of Philosophical Logic 25 (4):333 - 361 (1996)
|Abstract||The problem with model-theoretic modal semantics is that it provides only the formal beginnings of an account of the semantics of modal languages. In the case of non-modal language, we bridge the gap between semantics and mere model theory, by claiming that a sentence is true just in case it is true in an intended model. Truth in a model is given by the model theory, and an intended model is a model which has as domain the actual objects of discourse, and which relates these objects in an appropriate manner. However, the same strategy applied to the modal case seems to require an intended modal model whose domain includes mere possibilia. Building on recent work by Christopher Menzel (Nous 1990), I give an account of model-theoretic semantics for modal languages which does not require mere possibilia or intensional entities of any kind. Mcnzel has offered a representational account of model-theoretic modal semantics that accords with actualist scruples, since it does not require possibilia. However, Menzel's view is in the company of other actualists who seek to eliminate possible worlds, but whose accounts tolerate other sorts of abstract, intensional entities, such as possible states of affairs. Menzel's account crucially depends on the existence of properties and relations in intension. I offer a purely extensional, representational account and prove that it does all the work that Mcnzel's account does. The result of this endeavor is an account of modeltheoretic semantics for modal languages requiring nothing but pure sets and the actual objects of discourse. Since ontologically beyond what is prima facie presupposed by the model theory itself. Thus, the result is truly an ontology-free model-theoretic semantics for modal languages. That is to say, getting genuine modal semantics out of the model theory is ontologically cost-free. Since my extensional account is demonstrably no less adcguatc, and yet is at the same time more ontologically frugal, it is certainly to be preferred|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Michael J. Shaffer & Jeremy Morris (2006). A Paradox for Possible World Semantics. Logique et Analyse 49 (195):307-317.
E. -W. Stachow (1980). A Model Theoretic Semantics for Quantum Logic. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1980:272 - 280.
Norihiro Kamide (2002). Kripke Semantics for Modal Substructural Logics. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 11 (4):453-470.
Reina Hayaki (2003). Actualism and Higher-Order Worlds. Philosophical Studies 115 (2):149 - 178.
Colin Oakes (1999). Interpretations of Intuitionist Logic in Non-Normal Modal Logics. Journal of Philosophical Logic 28 (1):47-60.
Eli Dresner (2002). Measurement Theoretic Semantics and the Semantics of Necessity. Synthese 130 (3):413 - 440.
Christopher Menzel (1990). Actualism, Ontological Commitment, and Possible World Semantics. Synthese 85 (3):355 - 389.
Beihai Zhou (1999). Grafted Frames and S1-Completeness. Journal of Symbolic Logic 64 (3):1324-1338.
Dominic Gregory (2005). Keeping Semantics Pure. Noûs 39 (3):505–528.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads16 ( #81,741 of 722,864 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #60,917 of 722,864 )
How can I increase my downloads?