Anaphoric Dependence and Logical Form
In the core chapters 4-6, Iacona (2018) argues against the 'Uniqueness Thesis' (UT), stating that 'there is a unique notion of logical form that fulfils both the logical role and the semantic role' (39), where the former 'concerns the formal explanation of logical properties...
| Autor: | |
|---|---|
| Tipo de recurso: | artículo |
| Estado: | Versión publicada |
| Fecha de publicación: | 2020 |
| País: | España |
| Institución: | Varias* (Consorci de Biblioteques Universitáries de Catalunya, Centre de Serveis Científics i Acadèmics de Catalunya) |
| Repositorio: | Recercat. Dipósit de la Recerca de Catalunya |
| OAI Identifier: | oai:recercat.cat:2445/176736 |
| Acceso en línea: | https://hdl.handle.net/2445/176736 |
| Access Level: | acceso abierto |
| Palabra clave: | Filosofia del llenguatge Lògica Anàfora (Lingüística) Semàntica Referència (Lingüística) Philosophy of language Logic Anaphora (Linguistics) Semantics Reference (Linguistics) |
| Sumario: | In the core chapters 4-6, Iacona (2018) argues against the 'Uniqueness Thesis' (UT), stating that 'there is a unique notion of logical form that fulfils both the logical role and the semantic role' (39), where the former 'concerns the formal explanation of logical properties and logical relations, such as validity or contradiction' (37), and the latter 'concerns the formulation of a compositional theory of meaning' (ibid.). He argues for this on the basis of relations of coreference among referential expressions, names and indexicals. From what I take to be a fundamental agreement on most relevant issues, here I will nonetheless press him to clarify the notions of intrinsicness and the logical and semantic role of logical form on which he relies. |
|---|