Leibnizian Identity and Paraconsistent Logic

The standard Leibnizian view of identity allows for substitutivity of identicals and validates transitivity of identity within classical semantics. However, in a series of works, Graham Priest argues that Leibnizian identity invalidates both principles when formalized in paraconsistent semantics. This paper aims to show the Leibnizian view of identity validates substitutivity of identicals and transitivity of identity whether the logic is classical or paraconsistent. After presenting Priest's semantics of identity, I show what a semantic expression of Leibnizian identity does amount to. Then, I argue that Priest's semantic definition of identity is not Leibnizian. Finally, I offer a semantics characterization of identity in paraconsistent logic that is truly Leibnizian. I demonstrate that the correct formalization of Leibnizian identity in paraconsistent logic also validates substitutivity of identicals and transitivity of identity.     

On Value‐Attributions: Semantics and Beyond

This paper is driven by the idea that the contextualism‐relativism debate regarding the semantics of value‐attributions turns on certain extra‐semantic assumptions that are unwarranted. One is the assumption that the many‐place predicate of truth, deployed by compositional semantics, cannot be directly appealed to in theorizing about people's assessments of truth value but must be supplemented (if not replaced) by a different truth‐predicate, obtained through certain “postsemantic” principles. Another is the assumption that semantics assigns to sentences not only truth values (as a function of various parameters, such as contexts, worlds and times), but also semantic contents, and that what context‐sensitive expressions contribute to content are contextually determined elements. My first aim in this paper will be to show how the two assumptions have shaped two ways of understanding the debate between contextualism and relativism. My second aim will be to show that both assumptions belong outside semantics and are, moreover, questionable.     

Can Robert Adams Survive Moral Twin Earth?

Richard Boyd and Robert Adams have both developed semantic accounts of moral terms based on Hilary Putnam's causal regulation theory for natural kind terms, according to which the terms in question refer to the properties which predominantly causally regulated the terms. However, Terence Horgan and Mark Timmons have mounted an objection to Boyd's semantics—their Moral Twin Earth argument. If this argument is successful against Boyd then it might be thought that it should also be successful against Adams, given the similarity between their semantic accounts. I will argue in this essay that Adams's semantics is sufficiently different from Boyd's to enable him to survive Moral Twin Earth, but that he is vulnerable to a modified version of Moral Twin Earth that I describe.     

Past,present, and prospects: Reflections 40 years on from the selective impairment of semantic memory (Warrington, 1975)

We summarize the main findings and conclusions of Warrington's (1975) paper, The Selective Impairment of Semantic memory, a neuropsychological paper that described three cases with degenerative neurological conditions [Warrington, E. K. (1975). The selective impairment of semantic memory. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 27, 635–657]. We consider the developments that have followed from its publication and give a selective overview of the field in 2014. The initial impact of the paper was on neuropsychological investigations of semantic loss followed some 14 years later by the identification of Semantic Dementia (the condition shown by the original cases) as a distinctive form of degenerative disease with unique clinical and pathological characteristics. We discuss the distinction between disorders of semantic storage and refractory semantic access, the evidence for category- and modality-specific impairments of semantics, and the light that has been shed on the structure and organization of semantic memory. Finally we consider the relationship between semantic memory and the skills of reading and writing, phonological processing, and autobiographical memory.     

A Default-Oriented Theory of Procedural Semantics

Procedural Semantics(PS), broadly construed, is the thesis that the meaning of a symbolic expression may be identified with procedures which specify how the expression is to be used, or applied to the world. J.A. Fodor has characterized PS as a wildly implausible form of the verification theory of meaning, and has argued that PS constitutes a plausible semantic theory only for highly simplistic universes, such as “blocks worlds” and databases. Fodor argued further that insofar as PS is defensible, it is “parasitic upon” classical denotational semantics. Fodor's critique of PS provoked various rejoinders. Although these rejoinders were not always in agreement, both Wilks and Woods reasoned that some form of PS must be true if we are to render coherent certain fundamental concepts of modeloretic semantics (e.g., denotations and truth-conditions). In the present paper these arguments are reviewed and extended. It is argued that not only Tarskian semantics, but other forms of model-theoretic semantics (including possible world and Situation Semantics) may very well ontologically presuppose some form of PS. In addition, a default-oriented form of PS is presented which avoids the “decision procedure” approach of early PS. The new theory embraces aspects of Quine's pragmatism, and assumes that semantic procedures may return pragmatic (default) truth values which may be revised, if the need arises, by adjudication procedures. On the theory here described, semantic procedures do not constitute the complete meanings of symbolic expressions, but constrain these meanings. It is argued that such constraints must exist if there are to be ontological foundations for such traditional notions as denotations and extensions.     

THE QUEST FOR SELF-IDENTITY: TIME,NARRATIVE, AND THE LATE PROSE OF SAMUEL BECKETT

The long-standing problem of understanding self-identity has been most recently addressed as a matter of narrative form. Paul Ricoeur (1985a), as well as others, has examined how the discordant experience of time is structured by narrative form and can constitute an identity. This article attempts to extend his analysis to a reading of the late prose work of Samuel Beckett. While Beckett's approach to narrative identity shares similarity with Ricoeur's analysis, there are important distinctions. In contrast to Ricoeur's emphasis on the way narrative can order temporal experience, an examination of the works Stories and Texts for Nothing (1967) and How It Is (1964) serve to illustrate Beckett's experimentation with the generative power of the narrative voice. For Beckett, it seems that the very act of narration through time can give rise to problematic ambiguity and semantic multiplicity. It is argued that the literary works of Beckett complement that of Ricoeur's by attacking order and meaning; his texts show how narrating in time can distend, pull, and fragment in unexpected and generative ways. It is suggested that an appreciation of both the affirmative and negative aspects of narration are necessary for a complete understanding of self-identity.     

Buridan's Consequentia: Consequence and Inference Within a Token-Based Semantics

I examine the theory of consequentia of the medieval logician, John Buridan. Buridan advocates a strict commitment to what we now call proposition-tokens as the bearers of truth-value. The analysis of Buridan's theory shows that, within a token-based semantics, amendments to the usual notions of inference and consequence are made necessary, since pragmatic elements disrupt the semantic behaviour of propositions. In my reconstruction of Buridan's theory, I use some of the apparatus of modern two-dimensional semantics, such as two-dimensional matrices and the distinction between the context of formation and the context of evaluation of utterances.     

Getting Expression‐Based Semantics Right: Its Proper Objects of Evaluation and Limits

Often those attempting to resolve the answering machine paradox appeal to Kaplan's claim that the objects of semantic evaluation are expression‐types evaluated with respect to indices, instead of utterances, as part of their solution. This article argues that Dylan Dodd and Paula Sweeney exemplify the kind of mistakes theorists make in applying such expression‐based semantic theories in that (1) they conflate what is asserted with semantic content, and (2) they take their approach to utterance interpretation as having semantic significance. In light of these mistakes, we learn two things. First, we learn how expression‐based semantic theorists can avoid making these kinds of mistakes. Second, we learn how the limits of expression‐based semantics can contribute to what we should expect a semantic theory to explain regarding how semantics fits into a more general theory of linguistic communication and linguistic understanding.     

Linguistic communication and the semantics/pragmatics distinction

Most people working on linguistic meaning or communication assume that semantics and pragmatics are distinct domains, yet there is still little consensus on how the distinction is to be drawn. The position defended in this paper is that the semantics/pragmatics distinction holds between (context-invariant) encoded linguistic meaning and speaker meaning. Two other ‘minimalist’ positions on semantics are explored and found wanting: Kent Bach’s view that there is a narrow semantic notion of context which is responsible for providing semantic values for a small number of indexicals, and Herman Cappelen and Ernie Lepore’s view that semantics includes the provision of values for all indexicals, even though these depend on the speaker’s communicative intentions. Finally, some implications are considered for the favoured semantics/pragmatics distinction of the fact that there are linguistic elements (lexical and syntactic) which do not contribute to truth-conditional content but rather provide guidance on pragmatic inference.     

A Formal Reconstruction of Buridan's Modal Syllogism

In this paper, we provide a historical exposition of John Buridan's theory of divided modal propositions. We then develop a semantic interpretation of Buridan's theory which pays particular attention to Buridan's ampliation of modal terms. We show that these semantics correctly capture his syllogistic reasoning.     

The Bricot–Mair Dispute: Scholastic Prolegomena to Non-Compositional Semantics

From a general semantic point of view, Thomas Bricot (d. 1516) and John Mair (1467–1550) are proponents of the solution to semantic paradoxes based on appreciation of the contextuality of truth, who differ in their approach to the relations of logical consequence and contradiction. The core of the study is the analysis of Mair's criticism of Bricot presented in the sixth quaestio of his Tractatus insolubilium where the consequences of non-compositional semantics for the concepts of synonymy and logical form are addressed. The polemic between John Mair and Thomas Bricot is construed as having immediate consequences for research in the area of non-compositional semantics.     

Depth of intention

The paper attempts to reconstruct some notions of Naess's semantics, and at the same time to relate them to more recent developments. On Naess's view, there is no such thing as a language in the sense of a shared structure which determines clear‐cut literal meanings like Fregean Gedanken or propositions. We use words, and try to interpret each other; but there is no a priori or intuitive basis for secure and precise knowledge about language. Interpretation or understanding, as well as thinking and perception, involve discrimination at higher or lower levels. There is neither a ceiling of crystal‐clear propositions nor a floor of ‘given’ sensations or ‘objective’ stimuli independent of categorizations and discriminations, which might serve as a bridge for translation or interpretation between the conceptual‐perceptual schemes of individuals. The notions of ‘concept’, ‘conceptual framework’, ‘situation’, ‘situation type’ and ‘proposition’ are defined, with some reliance on Barwise and Perry's situation semantics. Two notions of accessibility of situation types are defined; one as constructibility of the type at a given level of discrimination, i.e. in terms of objects discerned and concepts discriminated; the other as intelligibility of the type. Intelligibility entails constructibility, but not conversely. A type of situation may be constructible at some person's level of discrimination, but not coherently intelligible to him. On this basis, a logic of senses or truth‐conditions for uses of expressions is developed, and a logic of interpretations of uses. The central notions of Naessian semantics are defined: ambiguity and direction of interpretation, level of discrimination and depth of intention.     

Some Limitations to the Psychological Orientation in Semantic Theory

The psychological orientation treats semantics as a matter of idealized computation over symbolic structures, and semantic relations like denotation as relations between linguistic expressions and these structures. I argue that results similar to Gödel’s incompleteness theorems and Tarski’s theorem on truth create foundational difficulties for this view of semantics.     

Euthanasia,Autonomy and Beneficence

Our interpretation of the Greek term sarx (σ?ρξ) has great impact on how we view the anthropology and theology expressed in Paul’s letters, and in Luke/Acts. This article takes Nida and Taber’s depiction of the semantic componential structure of σ?ρξ in Luke 24:39 and in Romans 11:14 as a starting point for a discussion of the semantic structure of σ?ρξ in these texts. The hermeneutical and translational principle of mental cascades (Lakoff and Wehling) provides a way to describe the associative links that exist between concepts in any language. Often, but not always, σ?ρξ has been translated into the English term flesh.     

The social semantics of Mikhail Pokrovskij and Nikolaj Marr

Criticizing the works of “Western” specialists in semantics, Soviet academician M. M. Pokrovskij (1868–1942) comes to the conclusion that social factors are essential for semantic evolution, while psychological factors constitute an intermediate link between the “external” life of a society and the semantics of the corresponding language. This conception resembles the general explanations of semantic evolution proposed by N. Ja. Marr (1864–1934). Nevertheless, despite a number of common points in the semantic theories of these two researchers, Pokrovskij’s attitude towards Marr was negative: in particular, he disagreed with the thesis of the chronological primacy of Marr’s discoveries in the domain of semantics. The article investigates why Pokrovskij had for a long time constituted an intermediate link between Russian and “Western” “traditions” in the field of semantics.

Towards a theory of communicative competence

In this, the second of two articles outlining a theory of communicative competence, the author questions the ability of Chomsky's account of linguistic competence to fulfil the requirements of such a theory. ‘Linguistic competence’ for Chomsky means the mastery of an abstract system of rules, based on an innate language apparatus. The model by which communication is understood on this account contains three implicit assumptions, here called ‘monologism’, ‘a priorism’, and ‘elementarism’. The author offers an outline of a theory of communicative competence that is based on the negations of these assumptions. In opposing the first two assumptions he introduces distinctions, respectively, between semantic universals which process experiences and those that make such processing possible, and between semantic universals which precede all socialization and those that are linked to the conditions of potential socialization. Against elementarism, he argues that the semantic content of all possible natural languages does not consist of combinations of a finite number of meaning components. Differences in systems of classification preclude this, and such differences can be seen to infect all respects of intercultural comparison. Using the notion of ‘performative utterance’, the author elucidates the role of dialogue‐constitutive universals as part of the formal apparatus required of a”; speaker's capacity to communicate. He then notes what would be required of a general semantics based on a theory of communicative competence; and finally points out how this theory might be used for social analysis.     

How to Criticize Lexical Accounts of Idioms

The semantics of idioms has traditionally treated the idiomatic phrase as a lexical item to which an idiomatic meaning is assigned, and in which remains inert the ordinary literal meaning of the phrase's constitutive words. I draw a distinction between metaphysical lexicalism and methodological lexicalism, and show how criticisms lodged against one kind of lexicalism leave the other intact. Once it is clarified that it is methodological lexicalism that is of interest, and what kind of evidence counts against methodological lexicalism and semantic inertness, I criticize the traditional semantic approach to idioms.     

Counterfactual Discourse in Context

The classic Lewis‐Stalnaker semantics for counterfactuals captures that Sobel sequences are consistent sequences, for example:

• a. If Sophie had gone to the parade, she would have seen Pedro dance.
• b. But if Sophie had gone to the parade and been stuck behind someone tall, she would not have seen Pedro dance.

But reverse a sequence like this one and it no longer sounds so good, which is surprising on the classic semantics. This observation motivated Kai von Fintel (2001) and Thony Gillies (2007) to propose dynamic semantic accounts of counterfactual conditionals. Subsequently, Sarah Moss (2012) defended the classic semantics against the charge that it need be abandoned in the face of these order effects, arguing that the infelicity of the reverse sequences is pragmatic. I argue that both accounts are ultimately untenable, but each account has strengths. Seeing what works and what doesn't in each account points the way to the right positive view. With this in mind, I defend a contextualist account of counterfactuals that takes conversational relevance to play a central role.     

A brief history of negation

The history of scholarship on negation tracks and illuminates the major developments in the history of metaphysics, philosophy of language, and philosophy of mind, from Parmenides, Plato and Aristotle through Frege, Russell, and Wittgenstein to contemporary formal theorists. Our perspective focuses on the catalytic role played by the 20th century philosopher of language Paul Grice, whose views on negation serve as a fulcrum for his attempt to bridge the (neo-)Traditionalist and Formalist traditions in logical thought. Grice's remarks on negation and speaker meaning and the elaboration of his ideas by subsequent neo-Griceans are summarized and situated within a broader picture of the role of contradictory and contrary negation in the frameworks of Aristotelians, Medievals, early modern schoolmaster-logicians, 19th and early 20th century neo-Idealists and Formalists, Oxford ordinary-language analytics, practitioners of classical and non-classical logics, and a range of other philosophers and linguists. Particular attention is paid to the relations between negation and the other operators of propositional and predicate calculus. Implications for accounts of the semantics and pragmatics of natural language are also pursued and extensive references to related work are provided.     

Inductive acuity and the acquisition of language

This study attempted to assess the inductive explanation of language acquisition. It was predicted that inductive acuity, operationally defined by reference to Kagan's concept of Reflection-Impulsivity, would facilitate syntactic and semantic development. Results indicated that children who are superior inductors scored higher on semantic tests, but not on syntactic tests. It was suggested that distinct learning strategies may be involved in the acquisition of syntax and semantics. Various theoretical implications of these findings for models of language encoding were discussed. Suggestions for subsequent research were offered.