Opacity,coreference, and pronouns

The problem discussed here is to find a basis for a uniform treatment of the relation between pronouns and their antecedents, taking into account both linguists' and philosophers' approaches. The two main candidates would appear to be the linguists' notion of coreference and the philosophers' notion of pronouns as variables. The notion of coreference can be extended to many but not all cases where the antecedent is non-referential. The pronouns-as-variables approach appears to come closer to full generality, but there are some examples of pronouns of laziness which appear to resist either of the two approaches.Earlier versions of this paper, under various titles, were presented orally to the Claremont Philosophical Discussion Group, the UCLA Linguistics Colloquium, the IBM Watson Research Center, the IBM Systems Development Division at Endicott, and at Princeton University. Criticisms and suggestions received on these occasions have helped lead to many revisions and additions. I am particularly grateful for the sympathetic encouragement given me by philosophers such as David Kaplan, Jack Vickers, and Gilbert Harman in this attempt to communicate simultaneously with linguists and philosophers.The most important sources for the present work are the following: among linguists, Postal (1968), for bringing the notion of coreference to prominence; Bach (1969, 1970), for first pointing out some fundamental problems with the treatment of pronominalization as a substitution process; McCawley [1967 (forthcoming), 1968], for his attempts to show logical notation, including the use of variables, to be of linguistic relevance; and Karttunen (1968a, b, 1968a, b), who has been exploring many of the same problems as are discussed here, and from whom a number of the examples below are taken or adapted (some of which are originally due to Baker (1966)). Among philosophers, the main sources are Quine (1960), for the notion of opacity and its relation to reference; Donnellan (1966), for claiming a referential/attributive distinction in definite noun phrases even in transparent contexts; and Geach (1962) for distinguishing pronouns of laziness from pronouns used like variables.     

The Logic of Opacity

We explore the view that Frege's puzzle is a source of straightforward counterexamples to Leibniz's law. Taking this seriously requires us to revise the classical logic of quantifiers and identity; we work out the options, in the context of higher‐order logic. The logics we arrive at provide the resources for a straightforward semantics of attitude reports that is consistent with the Millian thesis that the meaning of a name is just the thing it stands for. We provide models to show that some of these logics are non‐degenerate.     

First-order indefinite and uniform neighbourhood semantics

The main purpose of this paper is to define and study a particular variety of Montague-Scott neighborhood semantics for modal propositional logic. We call this variety the first-order neighborhood semantics because it consists of the neighborhood frames whose neighborhood operations are, in a certain sense, first-order definable. The paper consists of two parts. In Part I we begin by presenting a family of modal systems. We recall the Montague-Scott semantics and apply it to some of our systems that have hitherto be uncharacterized. Then, we define the notion of a first-order indefinite semantics, along with the more specific notion of a first-order uniform semantics, the latter containing as special cases the possible world semantics of Kripke. In Part II we prove consistency and completeness for a broad range of the systems considered, with respect to the first-order indefinite semantics, and for a selected list of systems, with respect to the first-order uniform semantics. The completeness proofs are algebraic in character and make essential use of the finite model property. A by-product of our investigations is a result relating provability in S-systems and provability in T-systems, which generalizes a known theorem relating provability in the systems S 2° and C 2.The author would like to thank Prof. Nuel D. Belnap of the University of Pittsburg for many indispensable contributions to earlier versions of this work. The author also thanks the referee for several helpful comments and corrections.     

Inner Opacity. Nietzsche on Introspection and Agency

Abstract

Nietzsche believes that we do not know our own actions, nor their real motives. This belief, however, is but a consequence of his assuming a quite general skepticism about introspection. The main aim of this paper is to offer a reading of this last view, which I shall call the Inner Opacity (IO) view. In the first part of the paper I show that a strong motivation behind IO lies in Nietzsche’s claim that self-knowledge exploits the same set of cognitive capacities as well as the same folk-psychological framework involved in outward-directed mind-reading. In the second part I turn to Nietzsche’s view of agency and argue that he sees a fundamental discrepancy between the conscious attitudes we have introspective access to, on the one hand, and the subpersonal processes and states occurring at the unconscious level of the drives, on the other hand.     

Opacity and the double life of singular propositions

In this paper I analyze David Kaplan?s essay “Opacity”. In “Opacity” Kaplan attempts to dismiss Quine?s concerns about quantification across intensional (modal and intentional) operators. I argue that Kaplan succeeds in showing that quantification across intensional operators is logically coherent and that quantified modal logic is strictly speaking not committed to essentialism. However, I also argue that this is not in and of itself sufficient to support Kaplan?s more ambitious attempt to move beyond purely logical results and provide unified, uncontroversial interpretations of both “believes” and “necessarily”. In the paper I raise several questions about the subject matter of logic and the role of semantics, with special focus on singular propositions.     

An analysis of indefinite probability statements

An analysis of indefinite probability statements has been offered by Jackson and Pargetter (1973). We accept that this analysis will assign the correct probability values for indefinite probability claims. But it does so in a way which fails to reflect the epistemic state of a person who makes such a claim. We offer two alternative analyses: one employing de re (epistemic) probabilities, and the other employing de dicto (epistemic) probabilities. These two analyses appeal only to probabilities which are accessible to a person who makes an indefinite probability judgment, and yet we prove that the probabilities which either of them assigns will always be equivalent to those assigned by the Jackson and Pargetter analysis.     

Reference and ethnic-group terms

The increasingly pluralistic character of modern societies has led to questions, not only about the proper use of ethnic-group terms, but also about the correct semantic analysis of them. Here I argue that ethnic-group terms are analogous to other linguistic expressions whose extension is fixed in the way suggested by a causal theory of reference. My view accommodates precisely those scenarios of communication involving ethnic-group terms that will be seen puzzling to Fregeans. At the same time, it undermines the plausibility of skepticism about those terms.     

Hybrid terms and sentences

In the paper we present completeness theorems for hybrid logics, discuss the problem of finite axiomatization and study term rewriting and unification for the variety of distributive lattices and the variety of groups of exponent 2.A financial assistance by the DFG is gratefully acknowledged.     

Opacity,Transparency, and the Paradox of the Accessibility Requirement

Key issues in epistemology for the most part have to do with epistemic values such as justification, truth, and knowledge—that is, values related to the epistemic status of our propositional attitudes, mental events, and states. However, another important issue that is worth examining is the extent to which a subject is in a position to evaluate the strength of her epistemic position. In this paper, I wish to emphasize two properties of our mental states that play a decisive part in that respect: their opacity and transparency. In the following, I will assume that a mental state is opaque whenever it presents itself with no underlying reason, whereas states that are supported by apparent reasons are transparent. One main argument that I will defend is that even when the opacity and transparency of our mental states are not reliable cues, still they remain highly informative. Notably, I draw some implications relative to the externalist/internalist debate in epistemology. I examine the claim that only mental states that are justified are well grounded or justification conferring and the idea that often stands behind, that is, that only states whose reasons are accessible are justified—namely, the Accessibility Requirement. I also examine the source of a recent debate in epistemology: the epistemic status of our intuitive states, as these are perfect instances of opaque mental states. I conclude that intuitive states in some respect are less misleading than states that are supported by apparent reasons.