David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Journal of Indian Philosophy 35 (5-6):597-626 (2007)
This paper does not deal with the topic of ‘the generosity of artiﬁcial languages from an Asian or a comparative perspective’. Rather, it is concerned with a particular case taken from a development in the Western tradition, when in the wake of the rise of formal logic at the end of the nineteenth and the beginning of the twentieth century people in philosophy and later in linguistics started to use formal languages in the study of the semantics of natural languages. This undertaking rests on certain philosophical assumptions and instantiates a particular methodology, that we want to examine critically. However, that in itself is still too broad a topic for a single paper, so we will focus on a particular aspect, viz., the distinction between grammatical form and logical form and the crucial role it plays in how the relationship between natural languages and formal languages is understood in this tradition. We will uncover two basic assumptions that underlie the standard view on the distinction between grammatical form and logical form, and discuss how they have contributed to the shaping of a particular methodology and a particular view on the status of semantics as a discipline.
|Keywords||semantics logical form early analytic philosophy|
No categories specified
(categorize this paper)
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Byeong-uk Yi (2006). The Logic and Meaning of Plurals. Part II. Journal of Philosophical Logic 35 (3):239-288.
Michael J. Shaffer & Jeremy Morris (2006). A Paradox for Possible World Semantics. Logique et Analyse 49 (195):307-317.
Jaroslav Peregrin (2008). Brandom’s Incompatibility Semantics. Philosophical Topics 36 (2):99-121.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads11 ( #111,222 of 1,013,707 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #39,295 of 1,013,707 )
How can I increase my downloads?