Noûs 53 (4):785-818 (2019)

Authors
Guillermo Del Pinal
University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
Abstract
Recent work in formal semantics suggests that the language system includes not only a structure building device, as standardly assumed, but also a natural deductive system which can determine when expressions have trivial truth‐conditions (e.g., are logically true/false) and mark them as unacceptable. This hypothesis, called the ‘logicality of language’, accounts for many acceptability patterns, including systematic restrictions on the distribution of quantifiers. To deal with apparent counter‐examples consisting of acceptable tautologies and contradictions, the logicality of language is often paired with an additional assumption according to which logical forms are radically underspecified: i.e., the language system can see functional terms but is ‘blind’ to open class terms to the extent that different tokens of the same term are treated as if independent. This conception of logical form has profound implications: it suggests an extreme version of the modularity of language, and can only be paired with non‐classical—indeed quite exotic—kinds of deductive systems. The aim of this paper is to show that we can pair the logicality of language with a different and ultimately more traditional account of logical form. This framework accounts for the basic acceptability patterns which motivated the logicality of language, can explain why some tautologies and contradictions are acceptable, and makes better predictions in key cases. As a result, we can pursue versions of the logicality of language in frameworks compatible with the view that the language system is not radically modular vis‐á‐vis its open class terms and employs a deductive system that is basically classical.
Keywords Logical form  contextualism  quantifiers  natural logic  tautologies  contradictions  grammaticality
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1111/nous.12235
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

 PhilArchive page | Other versions
External links

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

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Semantic Monsters.Brian Rabern - forthcoming - In Heimir Geirsson & Stephen Biggs (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Linguistic Reference.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Quantification and Logical Form.Andrea Iacona - 2015 - In Alessandro Torza (ed.), Quantifiers, Quantifiers, and Quantifiers. Springer. pp. 125-140.
Generalized Quantifiers, Exception Phrases, and Logicality.Shalom Lappin - 1995 - Logic Journal of the IGPL 3 (2-3):203-222.
Generalized Quantifiers, Exception Phrases, and Logicality.S. Lappin - 1996 - Journal of Semantics 13 (3):197-220.
Extensionality and Logicality.Gil Sagi - 2017 - Synthese (Suppl 5):1-25.
Logical Form.Christopher Menzel - 1998 - In Edward Craig (ed.), Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Routledge.
Logical Quantifiers.Gila Sher - 2012 - In D. Graff Fara & G. Russell (eds.), Routledge Companion to Philosophy of Language. Routledge. pp. 579-595.
Characterizing Invariance.Jack Woods - 2016 - Ergo: An Open Access Journal of Philosophy 3:778-807.
Logicality and Meaning.Gil Sagi - 2018 - Review of Symbolic Logic 11 (1):133-159.
Logical Form: Its Scope and Limits.Thomas Edwin Moody - 1982 - Dissertation, University of Minnesota
Linguistics and Natural Logic.George Lakoff - 1970 - Synthese 22 (1-2):151 - 271.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2020-01-21

Total views
94 ( #110,163 of 2,432,678 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
13 ( #52,090 of 2,432,678 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes