This paper is a critical evaluation of Kuenne's attempt to define truth via quantification into the position of a sentence.

Truth is a stable, epistemically unconstrained property of propositions, and the concept of truth admits of a non-reductive explanation: that, in a nutshell, is the view for which I argued in Conceptions of Truth. In this paper I try to explain that explanation in a more detailed and, hopefully, more perspicuous way than I did in Ch. 6.2 of the book and to defend its use of sentential quantification against some of the criticisms it has has come in (...) for. (shrink)

We prove how to validly quantify into hyperpropositional contexts de dicto in Transparent Intensional Logic. Hyperpropositions are sentential meanings and attitude complements individuated more finely than up to logical equivalence. A hyperpropositional context de dicto is a context in which only co-hyperintensional propositions can be validly substituted. A de dicto attitude ascription is one that preserves the attributee’s perspective when one complement is substituted for another. Being an extensional logic of hyperintensions, Transparent Intensional Logic validates all the rules of (...) extensional logic, including existential quantification. Yet the rules become more exacting when applied to hyperintensional contexts. The rules apply to only some types of entities, because the existence of only some types of entities is entailed by a hyperpropositional attitude de dicto. The insight that the paper offers is how a particular logic of hyperintensions is capable of validating quantifying-in in a principled and rigorous manner. This result advances the community-wide understanding of how to logically manipulate hyperintensions. (shrink)

Quantificational arguments can take scope outside of temporal adjunct clauses, in an apparent violation of locality restrictions: the sentence few secretaries cried after each executive resigned allows the quantificational NP each executive to take scope above few secretaries. I show how this scope relation is the result of local operations: the adjunct clause is a temporal generalized quantifier which takes scope over the main clause (Pratt and Francez, Linguistic and Philosophy 24(2), 187–222. [2001]), and within the adjunct clause, the quantificational (...) argument takes scope above the implicit determiner which forms the temporal generalized quantifier. The paper explores various relations among quantificational arguments across clause boundaries, including temporal clauses that are modified internally by a temporal adverbial and temporal clauses with embedded sentential complements. (shrink)

Consider two standard quantified modal languages A and P whose vocabularies comprise the identity predicate and the existence predicate, each endowed with a standard S5 Kripke semantics where the models have a distinguished actual world, which differ only in that the quantifiers of A are actualist while those of P are possibilist. Is it possible to enrich these languages in the same manner, in a non-trivial way, so that the two resulting languages are equally expressive-i.e., so that for each sentence (...) of one language there is a sentence of the other language such that given any model, the former sentence is true at the actual world of the model iff the latter is? Forbes (1989) shows that this can be done by adding to both languages a pair of sentential operators called Vlach-operators, and imposing a syntactic restriction on their occurrences in formulas. As Forbes himself recognizes, this restriction is somewhat artificial. The first result I establish in this paper is that one gets sameness of expressivity by introducing infinitely many distinct pairs of indexed Vlach-operators. I then study the effect of adding to our enriched modal languages a rigid actuality operator. Finally, I discuss another means of enriching both languages which makes them expressively equivalent, one that exploits devices introduced in Peacocke (1978). Forbes himself mentions that option but does not prove that the resulting languages are equally expressive. I do, and I also compare the Peacockian and the Vlachian methods. In due course, I introduce an alternative notion of expressivity and I compare the Peacockian and the Vlachian languages in terms of that other notion. (shrink)

Providing a compositional interpretation procedure for discourses in which descriptions of complex dependencies between interrelated objects are incrementally built is a key challenge for formal theories of natural language interpretation. This paper examines several quantificational phenomena and argues that to account for these phenomena, we need richly structured contexts of interpretation that are passed on between different parts of the same sentence and also across sentential boundaries. The main contribution of the paper is showing how we can add structure (...) to contexts in an incremental way, starting with the basic notion of context in classical first-order logic, i.e., interpretation contexts formalized as single total variable assignments. (shrink)

In the opening sections of this paper, we defined ambiguity in terms of distinct sentences (for a single sentence-string) with, in particular, distinct sets of truth conditions for the corresponding negative sentence-string. Lexical vagueness was defined as equivalent to disjunction, for under conditions of the negation of a sentence-string containing such an expression, all the relevant more specific interpretations of the string had also to be negated. Yet in the case of mixed quantification sentences, the strengthened, more specific, interpretations (...) of some such positive string are not all of them necessarily implied to be false if the corresponding negative sentence-string is asserted. On the contrary, as we saw in section 6, a negative sentence-string can be used to deny one of the more specific interpretations of the corresponding positive string without also denying other weaker interpretations of that same string. One might therefore argue that the only empirical evidence availble for assessing quantified sentences suggests clearly that these sentence-strings are ambiguous. Indeed logicians, many of whom restrict their attention to propositions, MUST recognise logical ambiguity at this point. For the contextualisation of the negative sentences in section 6 showed that it was possible to assert the falsity of some proposition P expressed by the sentence S while asserting a further proposition which was compatible with the truth of S. However the corresponding conclusion that such sentence-strings are sententially ambiguous is not a necessary conclusion for the linguist: for the alternative account of postulating a single semantic representation plus a set of semantic procedures is also compatible with the negation evidence. Moreover we have seen independent reasons for thinking that if sentential ambiguity is assumed to be in one-to-one correspondence with what we should now call logical ambiguity, a considerable body of generalisations is lost. For the maximal ambiguity account, it should be recalled, is committed to assigning at least thirteen distinct propositions and hence thirteen distinct sentence outputs for every sentence-string containing no more than two quantifiers, for three out of the four interpretations originally outlined in this paper can be understood with each numeral taken either in an ’exactly’ sense or in an ’at least’ sense. Moreover there is no explanation of why just these interpretations are available-they are merely an arbitrary list, no more connected than are the two interpretations of John saw her duck, with no reason to predict that the ambiguity would carry over from language to language. If then it is granted that an ambiguity account fails to capture appropriate generalisations, only two alternative accounts of mixed quantification sentence-strings remain viable-an analysis proposing an initial co-ordinate logical form like the logical form III, which is the strongest form compatible with each of the propositional interpretations of sentence-string Two examiners marked six scripts, and the radically weak form in which only existential quantification (both over sets and over members of those sets) is invoked. Since there are strong arguments to suggest that the procedures which both analyses require are semantic, there seems no reason not to adopt the radical vagueness account, with its considerably greater simplicity. (shrink)

The standard argument for the existence of distinctively mathematical objects like numbers has two main premises: some mathematical claims are true, and the truth of those claims requires the existence of distinctively mathematical objects. Most nominalists deny. Those who deny typically reject Quine’s criterion of ontological commitment. I target a different assumption in a standard type of semantic argument for. Benacerraf’s semantic argument, for example, relies on the claim that two sentences, one about numbers and the other about cities, have (...) the same grammatical form. He makes this claim on the grounds that the two sentences are superficially similar. I argue that these grounds are not sufficient. Other sentences with the same superficial form appear to have different grammatical forms. I offer two plausible interpretations of Benacerraf’s number sentence that make use of plural quantification. These interpretations appear not to incur ontological commitments to distinctively mathematical objects, even assuming Quine’s criterion. Such interpretations open a new, plural strategy for the mathematical nominalist. (shrink)

Classical logic, of first or higher order, is extended with sentential operators and quantifiers, interpreted substitutionally over unrestricted substitution class. Operators mark a single layered, consistent metalanguage. Self-reference, arising from substitutional quantification over sentences, allows to express paradoxes which, unlike contradictions, do not lead to explosion. Semantics of the resulting language, using semi-kernels of digraphs, is non-explosive yet two-valued and has classical semantics as a special case for clasically consistent theories. A complete reasoning is obtained by extending LK (...) with two rules for sentential quantifiers. Adding (cut) yields a complete system for the explosive semantics. (shrink)

Alethic pluralists often claim that accommodating certain alethic platitudes motivates rejecting deflationism in favour of a pluralist inflationism about truth. Deflationists claim that the logical role of the truth predicate, viz providing something equivalent to variables for sentence-in-use positions and quantifiers governing them, is sufficient to account for the appeal to truth in the alethic platitudes. Surprisingly, however, most deflationists face an insufficiently acknowledged problem with respect to explaining how this mode of generalizing works. The standard substitutional or higher-order interpretations (...) of sentential quantifiers and variables do not meet two desiderata that we claim any adequate account of them must satisfy. To address this issue, we review and extend A. N. Prior's adverbial understanding of sentential quantification, explain how it satisfies the desiderata, and respond to some objections. This shows that deflationists can accommodate and account for the alethic platitudes by applying this non-nominal understanding of generalizing on sentence positions. (shrink)

The paper proposes an account of the contrast (noticed in Karttunen 1976) between the interpretations of the following two discourses: Harvey courts a girl at every convention. {She is very pretty. vs. She always comes to the banquet with him.}. The initial sentence is ambiguous between two quantifier scopings, but the first discourse as a whole allows only for the wide-scope indefinite reading, while the second allows for both. This cross-sentential interaction between quantifier scope and anaphora is captured by (...) means of a new dynamic system couched in classical type logic, which extends Compositional DRT (Muskens 1996) with plural information states (modeled, following van den Berg 1996, as sets of variable assignments). Given the underlying type logic, compositionality at sub-clausal level follows automatically and standard techniques from Montague semantics become available. The paper also shows that modal subordination (A wolf might come in. It would eat Harvey first) can be analyzed in a parallel way, i.e. the system captures the anaphoric and quantificational parallels between the individual and modal domains argued for in Stone (1999) (among others). In the process, we see that modal / individual-level quantifiers enter anaphoric connections as a matter of course, usually functioning simultaneously as both indefinites and pronouns. (shrink)

The paper proposes a novel analysis of quantificational subordination, e.g. Harvey courts a woman at every convention. {She is very pretty. vs. She always comes to the banquet with him.} (Karttunen 1976), in particular of the fact that the indefinite in the initial sentence can have wide or narrow scope, but the first discourse as a whole allows only for the wide scope reading, while the second discourse allows for both readings. The cross-sentential interaction between scope and anaphora is (...) captured in terms of structured anaphora to quantifier domains, formalized in a new dynamic system couched in classical type logic; given the underlying type logic, Montague-style compositionality at sub-clausal level follows automatically. Modal subordination (Roberts 1987) is analyzed in a parallel way, thereby capturing the parallels between the individual and modal domains argued for in Stone (1999). Several other phenomena are analyzed in terms of structured anaphora: exceptional wide scope, weak / strong donkey readings, anaphoric / uniqueness-implying definite descriptions and interactions between same / different and quantifier scope. (shrink)

Metaphysical grounding is standardly taken to be irreflexive: nothing grounds itself. Kit Fine has presented some puzzles that appear to contradict this principle. I construct a particularly simple variant of those puzzles that is independent of several of the assumptions required by Fine, instead employing quantification into sentence position. Various possible responses to Fine's puzzles thus turn out to apply only in a restricted range of cases.

Truth predicates are widely believed to be capable of serving a certain logical or quasi-logical function. There is little consensus, however, on the exact nature of this function. We offer a series of formal results in support of the thesis that disquotational truth is a device to simulate higher-order resources in a first-order setting. More specifically, we show that any theory formulated in a higher-order language can be naturally and conservatively interpreted in a first-order theory with a disquotational truth or (...) truth-of predicate. In the first part of the paper we focus on the relation between truth and full impredicative sentential quantification. The second part is devoted to the relation between truth-of and full impredicative predicate quantification. (shrink)

A response to certain parts of Rumfitt : I defend Davidson's project in semantics, suggest that Rumfitt's use of sentential quantification renders his definition of truth needlessly elaborate, and pose a question for Rumfitt's handling of the strengthened Liar.

At the end of the nineties some authors (Leon Horsten, Stewart Shapiro and Jeffrey Ketland) worked out a fairly technical argument against deflationary theories of truth. In a nutshell, deflationism, it was argued, is committed to conservativeness by the the claim that truth is not a substantial notion, a conservative theory (under the light of certain logico-mathematical facts) can not be an adequate theory of truth, therefore deflationism is an inadequate theory of truth. Beside the apparent simplicity of this argument, (...) it hides a lot of subtle questions and problems and it is a very sophisticated argument. Deflationists attempted to reply in different ways to the argument but the general impression is that, so far, they have not been able to find a good solution. Deflationism does really seem to be condemned to be an inadequate theory. This work is divided in three main parts. The first part is a very general survey where the study of the notion of truth is introduced. In Chapter One we sketch philosophical theories of truth comparing more traditional approaches to deflationism; we briefly survey the history of deflationism and then we try to find a general characterization of it. In the second Chapter the notion of truth is considered under a formal approach and some important and simple axiomatic theories of truth are sketched. The second part join the philosophical and the formal approach to truth together into the debate over deflationism and conservativeness. In Chapter Three we introduce the notion of conservativeness and we give some example of its application both to logical and to philosophical matters. Then we spell out the argument from conservativeness and we discuss it in order to get a precise requirement that deflationary theories are supposed to satisfy. In Chapter Four we focus on deflationist replies to the argument from conservativeness and we discuss each solution. The third and last part is the core of the work, it consists in a more technical study of some presuppositions of the debate: we want to take a step backward and to compare the two major claims of deflationism - the centrality of T-sentences and the logical function of the truth predicate - with conservativeness. Many of the results used here are due to other logicians and philosophers and are available in literature yet, the originality consists in a critical consideration of such results under the light of the conservativeness of truth. More original reflections can be found in Chapter Seven and in particular in the conclusive Chapter Eight, where the proposal is completely new, at least as far as I know. In Chapter Five we compare T-sentences with the empty base theory and in Chapter Six we analyse in what measure a deflationary theory can be really conservative over a theory of syntax. The result would be quite serious for a deflationist. In Chapter Seven we compare conservativeness with the logical function of the truth predicate. We will get the unpleasant result that the truth predicate is not able to serve the logical function in no sense without loosing conservativeness at the same time. In Chapter Eight we draw some conclusion and we sketch a reformulation of the conservativeness requirement. This new requirement, we will argue, makes justice to the claim of the unsubstantiality of truth and at the same time it does not condemn deflationism to death. In this way, we will be able also to clarify what is the exact role of truth in sentential quantification, showing that this role is really innocent and unsubstantial. The unsubstantiality of deflationary truth, though, will not force deflationism into an inadequate theory of truth. (shrink)

‘Quantified pure existentials’ are sentences (e.g., ‘Some things do not exist’) which meet these conditions: (i) the verb EXIST is contained in, and is, apart from quantificational BE, the only full (as against auxiliary) verb in the sentence; (ii) no (other) logical predicate features in the sentence; (iii) no name or other sub-sentential referring expression features in the sentence; (iv) the sentence contains a quantifier that is not an occurrence of EXIST. Colin McGinn and Rod Girle have alleged that (...) standard first-order logic cannot adequately deal with some such existentials. The article defends the view that it can. (shrink)

Neo-positivism is the view that metaphysical questions completely decompose into ordinary empirical questions that can be answered by scientific enquiry (empirical) or ordinary logical or modal questions, which can be answered by appeal to a metaphysically innocent modalism (modal innocence) or questions that are non-factual, that is questions that are such that the world does not provide the question with a determinate answer (nonfactualism). -/- There is much to like about this book. It forcefully, and at times compellingly, presents a (...) new vision of metaphysics. It forces us to re-engage with questions about what we are doing when we do metaphysics, and presents a startling different picture to many that have emerged in recent times. Rather than conceiving of metaphysics as the search for the fundamental joints of reality, or for those things that give rise to the non-fundamental things we see around us, it argues for a quite different approach. (shrink)

In spite of a powerful tradition, more than two thousand years old, that in a valid argument the premises must be relevant to the conclusion, twentieth-century logicians neglected the concept of relevance until the publication of Volume I of this monumental work. Since that time relevance logic has achieved an important place in the field of philosophy: Volume II of Entailment brings to a conclusion a powerful and authoritative presentation of the subject by most of the top people working in (...) the area. Originally the aim of Volume II was simply to cover certain topics not treated in the first volume--quantification, for example--or to extend the coverage of certain topics, such as semantics. However, because of the technical progress that has occurred since the publication of the first volume, Volume II now includes other material. The book contains the work of Alasdair Urquhart, who has shown that the principal sentential systems of relevance logic are undecidable, and of Kit Fine, who has demonstrated that, although the first-order systems are incomplete with respect to the conjectured constant domain semantics, they are still complete with respect to a semantics based on "arbitrary objects." Also presented is important work by the other contributing authors, who are Daniel Cohen, Steven Giambrone, Dorothy L. Grover, Anil Gupta, Glen Helman, Errol P. Martin, Michael A. McRobbie, and Stuart Shapiro. Robert G. Wolf's bibliography of 3000 items is a valuable addition to the volume. (shrink)

A form of quantification logic referred to by the author in earlier papers as being 'ontologically neutral' still made use of the actual infinite in its semantics. Here it is shown that one can have, if one desires, a formal logic that refers in its semantics only to the potential infinite. Included are two new quantifiers generalizing the sentential connectives, equivalence and non-equivalence. There are thus new avenues opening up for exploration in both quantification logic and semantics (...) of the infinite. (shrink)

The identity predicate can be defined using second-order quantification: a=b =df ∀F(Fa↔Fb). Less familiarly, a dyadic sentential operator analogous to the identity predicate can be defined using third-order quantification: ϕ≡ψ =df ∀X(Xϕ↔Xψ), where X is a variable of the same syntactic type as a monadic sentential operator. With this notion in view, it is natural to ask after general principles governing its application. More grandiosely, how fine-grained is reality? -/- I will argue that reality is not (...) structured in anything like the way that the sentences we use to talk about it are structured. I do so by formulating a higher-order analogue of Russell’s paradox of structured propositions. I then relate this argument to the Frege-Russell correspondence. When confronted with the alleged paradox, Frege agreed that reality was not structured, but maintained that propositions (i.e. thoughts) were structured all the same. Russell replied that his paradox showed Frege’s theory of structured thoughts to be inconsistent, to which Frege replied that Russell’s argument failed to heed the distinction between sense and reference. Most recent commentators have sided with Russell. In defense of Frege, I establish the consistency of one version of his rejoinder. I then consider and reject some ways of resisting the argument against a structured conception of reality. I conclude that, if propositions are structured, this is because they correspond not to distinctions in reality, but rather to ways in which those distinctions can be represented. (shrink)

In spite of a powerful tradition, more than two thousand years old, that in a valid argument the premises must be relevant to the conclusion, twentieth-century logicians neglected the concept of relevance until the publication of Volume I of this monumental work. Since that time relevance logic has achieved an important place in the field of philosophy: Volume II of Entailment brings to a conclusion a powerful and authoritative presentation of the subject by most of the top people working in (...) the area. Originally the aim of Volume II was simply to cover certain topics not treated in the first volume--quantification, for example--or to extend the coverage of certain topics, such as semantics. However, because of the technical progress that has occurred since the publication of the first volume, Volume II now includes other material. The book contains the work of Alasdair Urquhart, who has shown that the principal sentential systems of relevance logic are undecidable, and of Kit Fine, who has demonstrated that, although the first-order systems are incomplete with respect to the conjectured constant domain semantics, they are still complete with respect to a semantics based on "arbitrary objects." Also presented is important work by the other contributing authors, who are Daniel Cohen, Steven Giambrone, Dorothy L. Grover, Anil Gupta, Glen Helman, Errol P. Martin, Michael A. McRobbie, and Stuart Shapiro. Robert G. Wolf's bibliography of 3000 items is a valuable addition to the volume. Originally published in 1992. The Princeton Legacy Library uses the latest print-on-demand technology to again make available previously out-of-print books from the distinguished backlist of Princeton University Press. These editions preserve the original texts of these important books while presenting them in durable paperback and hardcover editions. The goal of the Princeton Legacy Library is to vastly increase access to the rich scholarly heritage found in the thousands of books published by Princeton University Press since its founding in 1905. (shrink)

In this paper, we outline an approach to giving extensional truth-theoretic semantics for what have traditionally been seen as opaque sentential contexts. We outline an approach to providing a compositional truth-theoretic semantics for opaque contexts which does not require quantifying over intensional entities of any kind, and meets standard objections to such accounts. The account we present aims to meet the following desiderata on a semantic theory T for opaque contexts: (D1) T can be formulated in a first-order extensional (...) language; (D2) T does not require quantification over intensional entities­i.e., meanings, propositions, properties, relations, or the like­in its treatment of opaque contexts; (D3) T captures the entailment relations that hold in virtue of form between sentences in the language for which it is a theory; (D4) T has a finite number of axioms. If the approach outlined here is correct, it resolves a longstanding complex of problems in metaphysics, the philosophy of mind and the philosophy of language. (shrink)

This book says Prior claims: (1) that a sentence never names; (2) what a sentence says cannot be otherwise signified; and (3) that a sentence says what it says whatever the type of its occurrence; (4) and that quantifications binding sentential variables are neither eliminable, substitutional, nor referential. The book develops and defends (1)-(3). It also defends (4) against the sorts of strictures on quantification of such philosophers as Quine and Davidson.

In discussing propositional quantifiers we have considered two kinds of variables: variables occupying the argument places of connectives, and variables occupying the argument places of predicates.We began with languages which contained the first kind of variable, i.e., variables taking sentences as substituends. Our first point was that there appear to be no sentences in English that serve as adequate readings of formulas containing propositional quantifiers. Then we showed how a certain natural and illuminating extension of English by prosentences did provide (...) perspicuous readings. The point of introducing prosentences was to provide a way of making clear the grammar of propositional variables: propositional variables have a prosentential character — not a pronominal character. Given this information we were able to show, on the assumption that the grammar of propositional variables in philosopher's English should be determined by their grammar in formal languages (unless a separate account of their grammar is provided), that propositional variables can be used in a grammatically and philosophically acceptable way in philosophers' English. According to our criteria of well-formedness Carnap's semantic definition of truth does not lack an ‘essential’ predicate - despite arguments to the contrary. It also followed from our account of the prosentential character of bound propositional variables that in explaining propositional quantification, sentences should not be construed as names.One matter we have not discussed is whether such quantification should be called ‘propositional’, ‘sentential’, or something else. As our variables do not range over (they are not terms) either propositions, or sentences, each name is inappropriate, given the usual picture of quantification. But we think the relevant question in this context is, are we obtaining generality with respect to propositions, sentences, or something else?Because people have argued that all bound variables must have a pronominal character, we presented and discussed in the third section languages in which the variables take propositional terms as substituends. In our case we included names of propositions, that-clauses, and names of sentences in the set of propositional terms. We made a few comparisons with the languages discussed in the second section. We showed among other things how a truth predicate could be used to obtain generality. In contrast, the languages of the second section, using propositional variables, obtain generality without the use of a truth predicate. (shrink)

Speaking of Professor Geach's belief that pronouns in natural language function like the bound variables in quantification theory, Gareth Evans, in ‘Pronouns, Quantifiers, and Relative Clauses - I’ says :I want to try to show that there are pronouns with quantifier antecedents that function in a quite different way. Such pronouns typically stand in a different grammatical relation to their antecedents, and; in contrast with bound pronouns, must be assigned a reference, so that their most immediate sentential contexts (...) can always be assigned a truth value. The relevant grammatical relation appears to be Klima's relation of ‘in construction with’. When the pronoun is in construction with its antecedent, as in [‘Some man loves his mother’] and [‘No man is happy when he is in love’] the result is a bound pronoun. (shrink)

Speaking of Professor Geach's belief that pronouns in natural language function like the bound variables in quantification theory, Gareth Evans, in ‘Pronouns, Quantifiers, and Relative Clauses - I’ says :I want to try to show that there are pronouns with quantifier antecedents that function in a quite different way. Such pronouns typically stand in a different grammatical relation to their antecedents, and; in contrast with bound pronouns, must be assigned a reference, so that their most immediate sentential contexts (...) can always be assigned a truth value. The relevant grammatical relation appears to be Klima's relation of ‘in construction with’. When the pronoun is in construction with its antecedent, as in [‘Some man loves his mother’] and [‘No man is happy when he is in love’] the result is a bound pronoun. (shrink)

(1) modal logic is not needed, Since there are alternative accounts of modality. (2) modal logic does not function as logic even in the thinking of its advocates, As is revealed, E.G., When the semantics of modal logic is presented in an extensional metalanguage. Furthermore, (3) when a wider view is taken, One sees that modal logic treats as logical constants expressions that belong to a large and open syntactic class, Unlike other logical constants. Finally, (4) modal logic treats as (...) sentential operators devices that function in natural language as underlying predicates. The last two points also indicate that a theory of modality making use of modal predicates is to be preferred to an account that explains away modality in terms of quantification over possible worlds. (shrink)

This book, originally published in 1978 by Charles E. Merrill Publishing Co., provides a comprehensive treatment of topics generally covered in introductory courses in logic. It covers language uses, definition, informal fallacies, scientific method, categorical logic, sentential logic, and quantification, and also provides additional student aids including concise chapter outlines.

This paper explores the question of what makes diagrammatic representations effective for human logical reasoning, focusing on how Euler diagrams support syllogistic reasoning. It is widely held that diagrammatic representations aid intuitive understanding of logical reasoning. In the psychological literature, however, it is still controversial whether and how Euler diagrams can aid untrained people to successfully conduct logical reasoning such as set-theoretic and syllogistic reasoning. To challenge the negative view, we build on the findings of modern diagrammatic logic and introduce (...) an Euler-style diagrammatic representation system that is designed to avoid problems inherent to a traditional version of Euler diagrams. It is hypothesized that Euler diagrams are effective not only in interpreting sentential premises but also in reasoning about semantic structures implicit in given sentences. To test the hypothesis, we compared Euler diagrams with other types of diagrams having different syntactic or semantic properties. Experiment compared the difference in performance between syllogistic reasoning with Euler diagrams and Venn diagrams. Additional analysis examined the case of a linear variant of Euler diagrams, in which set-relationships are represented by one-dimensional lines. The experimental results provide evidence supporting our hypothesis. It is argued that the efficacy of diagrams in supporting syllogistic reasoning crucially depends on the way they represent the relational information contained in categorical sentences. (shrink)

This paper addresses the two interpretations that a combination ofnegative indefinites can get in concord languages like French:a concord reading, which amounts to a single negation, and a doublenegation reading. We develop an analysis within a polyadic framework,where a sequence of negative indefinites can be interpreted as aniteration of quantifiers or via resumption. The first option leadsto a scopal relation, interpreted as double negation. The secondoption leads to the construction of a polyadic negative quantifiercorresponding to the concord reading. Given that (...) sentential negationparticipates in negative concord, we develop an extension of thepolyadic approach which can deal with non-variable binding operators,treating the contribution of negation in a concord context assemantically empty. Our semantic analysis, incorporated into agrammatical analysis formulated in HPSG, crucially relies on theassumption that quantifiers can be combined in more than one wayupon retrieval from the quantifier store. We also considercross-linguistic variation regarding the participation ofsentential negation in negative concord. (shrink)

This title introduces students to non-classical logic, syllogistic, to quantificational and modal logic. The book includes exercises throughout and a glossary of terms and symbols. Taking students beyond classical mathematical logic, "Philosophical Logic" is a wide-ranging introduction to more advanced topics in the study of philosophical logic. Starting by contrasting familiar classical logic with constructivist or intuitionist logic, the book goes on to offer concise but easy-to-read introductions to such subjects as quantificational and syllogistic logic, modal logic and set theory. (...) Chapters of this title include: Sentential Logic; Quantificational Logic; Sentential Modal Logic; Quantification and Modality; Set Theory; Incompleteness; An Introduction to Term Logic; and, Modal Term Logic. In addition, the book includes a list of symbols and a glossary of terms for ease of reference and exercises throughout help students master the topics covered in the book. (shrink)

Speaking of Professor Geach's belief that pronouns in natural language function like the bound variables in quantification theory, Gareth Evans, in ‘Pronouns, Quantifiers, and Relative Clauses - I’ says :I want to try to show that there are pronouns with quantifier antecedents that function in a quite different way. Such pronouns typically stand in a different grammatical relation to their antecedents, and; in contrast with bound pronouns, must be assigned a reference, so that their most immediate sentential contexts (...) can always be assigned a truth value. The relevant grammatical relation appears to be Klima's relation of ‘in construction with’. When the pronoun is in construction with its antecedent, as in [‘Some man loves his mother’] and [‘No man is happy when he is in love’] the result is a bound pronoun. (shrink)

In this paper I sketch some arguments that underlie Hegel's chapter on judgment, and I attempt to place them within a broad tradition in the history of logic. Focusing on his analysis of simple predicative assertions or ‘positive judgments’, I first argue that Hegel supplies an instructive alternative to the classical technique of existential quantification. The main advantage of his theory lies in his treatment of the ontological implications of judgments, implications that are inadequately captured by quantification. The (...) second concern of this paper is the manner in which Hegel makes logic not only dependent on ontology generally, but also variant in regard to domains of objects. In other words, he offers a domain-specific logical theory, according to which the form of judgment or inference is specific to the subject of judgment. My third concern lies with the metaphilosophical consequences of this theory, and this includes some more familiar Hegelian themes. It is well known that Hegel frequently questioned the adequacy of the sentential form for expressing higher order truths. My reading of his theory of predication explains and contextualizes this tendency by demystifying notions like the so-called speculative proposition. (shrink)

Introduction to genericity in the nominal, verbal and sentential domain.

A logical theory of oppositions deals with the relation between propositions and their truth values. On the basis of a formal semantics that proceeds by means of questions-answers, three theses are claimed in the following: (1) the concept of opposition usually refers to incompatibility, but our logical analysis focusses upon a broader relation of difference; (2) more generally, opposition has to do with negativity; our semantics accounts for it through opposite-forming operators; (3) subalternation is a particular case of non-contradiction expressing (...) an “opposition of an opposition”; it is not a proper opposition, accordingly, but its very meaning depends upon the latter. There is not only one but rather a number of expressions for negativity and the paper presents a detailed analysis of these "floating" expressions in a twofold sense of the word: floating quantification is closely related to the logical operations of sentential negation and denial; to what extent natural languages do not clearly express the meaning of a negative thought will be exemplified. L'objectif du texte qui suit est double : non seulement proposer une analyse logique du concept d'opposition, susceptible d'apporter de la précision à cette notion tout aussi vague que courante ; mais aussi, proposer une explication des différentes façons dont la négation se manifeste dans les langues naturelles, en particulier dans notre modèle local de la langue française. Tandis que la communauté des linguistes propose couramment une distinction entre une négation logique et une négation linguistique, l'article qui suit a la prétention d'une explication unifiée de la négation, c'est-à-dire un cadre théorique commun dans lequel ces deux aspects de l'opérateur de négation apparaissent comme des cas particuliers aux significations distinctes. Il n'y aurait donc pas une négation logique, d'un côté, et une négation linguistique ou "métalinguistique", de l'autre. Une approche structurelle des expressions négatives devrait apporter un éclairage sur ce point, par le biais d'une analyse algébrique de la signification en termes de questions-réponses. Mais revenons pour commencer sur l'origine philosophique du concept d'opposition, avant d'en exposer les propriétés logiques par la suite et les expressions linguistiques pour conclure. (shrink)

Take a formula of first-order logic which is a logical consequence of some other formulae according to model theory, and in all those formulae replace schematic letters with English expressions. Is the argument resulting from the replacement valid in the sense that the premisses could not have been true without the conclusion also being true? Can we reason from the model-theoretic concept of logical consequence to the modal concept of validity? Yes, if the model theory is the standard one for (...) sentential logic; no, if it is the standard one for the predicate calculus; and yes, if it is a certain model theory for free logic. These conclusions rely inter alia on some assumptions about possible worlds, which are mapped into the models of model theory. Plural quantification is used in the last section, while part of the reasoning is relegated to an appendix that includes a proof of completeness for a version of free logic. (shrink)

In [1], we established Gentzenizations for a good range of relevant logics with distribution, but, in the process, we added inversion rules, which involved extra structural connectives, and also added the sentential constantt. Instead of eliminating them, we used conservative extension results to relate them back to the original logics. In [4], we eliminated the inversion rules andtand established a much simpler Gentzenization for the weak sentential relevant logicDW, and also for its quantificational extensionDWQ, but a restriction to (...) normal formulae (defined below) was required to enable these results to be proved. This method was quite general and hope was expressed about extending it to other relevant logics.In this paper, we develop an innovative method, which makes essential use of this restriction to normality, to establish two simple Gentzenizations for the normal formulae of the slightly weaker logic B, and then extend the method to other sentential contraction-less logics. To obtain the first of these Gentzenizations, for the logicsBandDW, we remove the two branching rules (F&) and (T∨), together with the structural connective ‘,’, to simplify the elimination of the inversion rules andt. We then eliminate the rules (T&) and (F∨), thus reducing the Gentzen system to one containing only ˜ and → and their four associated rules, and reduce the remaining types of structures to four simple finite types. Subsequently, we re-introduce (T&) and (F∨), and also (F&) and (T∨), to obtain the second Gentzenization, which contains ‘,’ but no structural rules. (shrink)

In [1], we established Gentzenizations for a good range of relevant logics with distribution, but, in the process, we added inversion rules, which involved extra structural connectives, and also added the sentential constantt. Instead of eliminating them, we used conservative extension results to relate them back to the original logics. In [4], we eliminated the inversion rules andtand established a much simpler Gentzenization for the weak sentential relevant logicDW, and also for its quantificational extensionDWQ, but a restriction to (...) normal formulae (defined below) was required to enable these results to be proved. This method was quite general and hope was expressed about extending it to other relevant logics.In this paper, we develop an innovative method, which makes essential use of this restriction to normality, to establish two simple Gentzenizations for the normal formulae of the slightly weaker logic B, and then extend the method to other sentential contraction-less logics. To obtain the first of these Gentzenizations, for the logicsBandDW, we remove the two branching rules (F&) and (T∨), together with the structural connective ‘,’, to simplify the elimination of the inversion rules andt. We then eliminate the rules (T&) and (F∨), thus reducing the Gentzen system to one containing only ˜ and → and their four associated rules, and reduce the remaining types of structures to four simple finite types. Subsequently, we re-introduce (T&) and (F∨), and also (F&) and (T∨), to obtain the second Gentzenization, which contains ‘,’ but no structural rules. (shrink)

The paper contains a survey of existence problems in the folowing calculi of formal logic: calculi of classes, syllogistics, classic predicate calculus, Lesniewski's ontology, quantificational modal calculi, quantificational tense logics, sentential calculi. The particular attention is given to metaphysical (ontological) presuppositions and commitments of logical calculi especially to the problems of empty set, existential axiom (axiom of the non-emptiness of universe of discourse), existential operators (quantifiers and functors), possible worlds, temporal predicates and operators, objects of sentences.

The fregean theory of meaning says how the meaningful parts of a meaningful expression contribute to that expression's sense and reference. But frege overlooks the fact that logical expressions play dual roles. The contributions of sentential connectives, For example, Are well described for contexts in which they connect sentences, But not for larger quantificational contexts. An obvious modification of the theory which might fill the abyss is considered, And it is maintained that it produces two difficulties: a replication of (...) frege's concept 'horse' troubles and an infinite proliferation of logical vocabulary. The seriousness of these difficulties is briefly discussed. (shrink)

ABSTRACT In several publications, François Recanati argues that time, world, location, and similar constituents are not arguments of the verb, although they do affect truth conditions. However, he points out that this fact does not decide the debate regarding whether these notions are represented as sentential operators variables bound by quantifiers, as both approaches can be made compatible with such non-arguments. He makes these points using philosophical arguments; in this paper I use linguistic evidence from a variety of languages. (...) Specifically, I demonstrate that time, world, location, and person behave syntactically and semantically the same across languages. Hence, either all are arguments, or neither are; and the evidence points to the latter position. The cross-linguistic data give rise to a generalization, which connects the availability of quantifying over times, worlds, locations, or persons with the availability of indexical expressions of the corresponding type. For example, a language that does not have temporal indexicals cannot have tense. I demonstrate that this generalization follows naturally from the quantifier approach, but would remain a mystery under the operator view. Therefore, the cross-linguistic evidence argues in the favor of the quantificational approach. (shrink)

So-called 'dynamic' semantic theories such as Kamp's discourse representation theory and Heim's file change semantics account for such phenomena as cross-sentential anaphora, donkey anaphora, and the novelty condition on indefinites, but compare unfavorably with Montague semantics in some important respects (clarity and simplicity of mathematical foundations, compositionality, handling of quantification and coordination). Preliminary efforts have been made by Muskens and by de Groote to revise and extend Montague semantics to cover dynamic phenomena. We present a new higher-order theory (...) of discourse semantics which improves on their accounts by incorporating a more articulated notion of context inspired by ideas due to David Lewis and to Craige Roberts. On our account, a context consists of a common ground of mutually accepted propositions together with a set of discourse referents preordered by relative salience. Employing a richer notion of contexts enables us to extend our coverage beyond pronominal anaphora to a wider range of presuppositional phenomena, such as the factivity of certain sentential-complement verbs, resolution of anaphora associated with arbitrarily complex definite descriptions, presupposition 'holes' such as negation, and the independence condition on the antecedents of conditionals. Formally, our theory is expressed within a higher-order logic with natural number type, separation-style subtyping, and dependent coproducts parameterized by the natural numbers. The system of semantic types builds on proposals due to Thomason and to Pollard in which the type of propositions (static meanings of sentential utterances) is taken as basic and worlds are constructed from propositions (rather than the other way around as in standard Montague semantics). (shrink)

Professor Stevenson's valuable paper [5] calls attention to a number of discrepancies between ‘if’ in English and its usual translation into the horseshoe of material implication. “This is not a reason for distrusting the horseshoe,” he notes, “which is useful so long as it is taken to mean just what it is defined to mean; and it is not a reason for distrusting our English if's, which in spite of their ambiguities are indispensable to our daily discourse”. Accordingly, Stevenson proposes (...) to develop a “richer logic” than the ordinary one, by adding as primitives certain sentential connectives. He speaks throughout in the old terminology of “propositions” rather than in that of the sentences or statements used to express them. Thus he speaks of atomic and molecular propositions, somehow no doubt as real entities in the world, where talk of atomic and molecular sentences would save him from implicit involvement in the notorious difficulties connected with atomic facts. Finally, the inner structure of atomic sentences, and therewith of molecular ones, is never considered. Many molecular sentences contain quantifiers in interesting ways, the clarification of which would seem essential in getting at their structure. Stevenson, however, has no concern with quantifiers, and does not exhibit the quantificational structure of the English sentences considered. (shrink)

This book serves as a concise introduction to some main topics in modern formal logic for undergraduates who already have some familiarity with formal languages. There are chapters on sentential and quantificational logic, modal logic, elementary set theory, a brief introduction to the incompleteness theorem, and a modern development of traditional Aristotelian Logic.

This introduction to formal logic is one of the few paperbacks available that provides a broad survey of the field. In addition to a clear presentation of sentential and first order quantificational logic, there is a discussion of the philosophical significance of recent work by Church, Gödel, and Tarski. The proof technique employed throughout is the indirect argument. Since proofs of this sort can be converted into mechanical tests of validity, it is easier than most for a beginning student (...) to grasp. Furthermore, this style of argument has long been recognized as the most obvious method of showing arguments in ordinary language to be invalid. Interesting treatments of the construction of decision machines, the nature of formal systems, and the application of logic to mathematics are included in the last section. Numerous exercises are included for which some answers are provided.--R. P. M. (shrink)