By Peregrin Jaroslav

Show description

Read or Download Linguistic Philosophy PDF

Similar logic & language books

Platonism and anti-Platonism in mathematics

During this hugely soaking up paintings, Balaguer demonstrates that no stable arguments exist both for or opposed to mathematical platonism-for instance, the view that summary mathematical gadgets do exist and that mathematical theories are descriptions of such items. Balaguer does this by way of constructing that either platonism and anti-platonism are justifiable perspectives.

Language and Reality: Introduction to the Philosophy of Language

What's language? How does it relate to the area? How does it relate to the brain? may still our view of language impact our view of the realm? those are one of the imperative matters lined during this lively and surprisingly transparent creation to the philosophy of language. Making no pretense of neutrality, Michael Devitt and Kim Sterelny take a distinct theoretical stance.

Argumentation Machines: New Frontiers in Argument and Computation

Within the overdue Nineties, AI witnessed an expanding use of the time period 'argumentation' inside of its bounds: in average language processing, in consumer interface layout, in common sense programming and nonmonotonic reasoning, in Al's interface with the felony neighborhood, and within the newly rising box of multi-agent platforms.

Epistemology and the Regress Problem

Within the final decade, the frequent challenge of the regress of purposes has back to popular attention in epistemology. And with the go back of the matter, evaluate of the choices on hand for its resolution is started anew. Reason’s regress challenge, approximately placed, is if one has sturdy purposes to think anything, one should have solid cause to carry these purposes are solid.

Additional info for Linguistic Philosophy

Example text

If it fails to do so, the sentence is not false, but rather infelicitous, because it makes the listener wonder what the speaker is talking about. On the other hand, if the subject succeeds in pointing out a known anchor and the predicate fails to be true, the sentence is simply false. In other words, the subject is the matter of presupposing, whereas the predicate is the matter of stating. What kind of logic do we need to account for this?. e. they can be not only true or false, but also “infelicitous”).

Guenthner, Reidel, Dordrecht. (1950): The Logical Foundations of Probability, Univ. of Chicago Press. (1940): A Formulation of the Simple Theory of Types, Jour. Logic 5, 56-68. (1973): Logic and Languages, Meuthen, London. (1960): The Way the World is, The Review of Metaphysics 14. (1950): Completeness in the Theory of Types, Jour. of Symb. Logic 15, 81-91. (1969): Models for Modalities, Reidel, Dordrecht. (1978): Impossible Possible Worlds Vindicated, in: Game-Theoretical Semantics, ed. Saarinen, Reidel, Dordrecht.

John walks (1) JOHN walks (2) An instructive way to see topic and focus is to see them just as “semantic subject” and “semantic predicate”. Topic is that which the sentence is about, by which it gets anchored to the common ground, and focus brings about the very information the sentence was assembled to convey. What does this mean for logical analysis? The straightforward way to analyze (1) is (1’); and it seems that to account for the fact that in (2) the roles of John and Walks get exchanged it is enough to employ the mechanism of lambda-abstraction and to use the well-known Montagovian trick of type-raising.

Download PDF sample

Rated 4.21 of 5 – based on 27 votes