Scribd Logo
Carica

Benvenuto in Scribd!

  • Holster, Andrew (2003) Introduction To Pavel Tichy and Transparent Intensional Logic

    Caricato da

    Tommaso Cimino
    123 visualizzazioni29 pagine
    Abstract Pavel Tichy (1936-1994) was a Czech philosopher who originally studied and worked at Charles University in Prague, and spent the second half of his life in New Zealand as a political refugee. Early in his career he invented intensional logic, simultaneously with Richard Montague, but published his version in 1971, slightly after Montague's 1970 papers, and has never been recognised for this achievement. But this was only the beginning of his work. He developed a highly original theory of semantics called Transparent Intensional Logic, which is the basis of an important research program based in the Czech Republic and Slovenia. He published a wide range of original work in semantics, philosophy of logic and language, philosophy of science, and metaphysics; but despite the indisputable quality of this work, he has gained little contemporary recognition. This article provides a brief introduction to his work, focussing mainly on basic ideas of his intensional semantics and his theory of 'constructions'

    Titolo originale

    Holster, Andrew (2003) Introduction to Pavel Tichy and Transparent Intensional Logic

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Formati disponibili

    DOC, PDF, TXT o leggi online da Scribd

    Hai trovato utile questo documento?

    Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

    Segnala questo documento
    Abstract Pavel Tichy (1936-1994) was a Czech philosopher who originally studied and worked at Charles University in Prague, and spent the second half of his life in New Zealand as a political refugee. Early in his career he invented intensional logic, simultaneously with Richard Montague, but published his version in 1971, slightly after Montague's 1970 papers, and has never been recognised for this achievement. But this was only the beginning of his work. He developed a highly original theory of semantics called Transparent Intensional Logic, which is the basis of an important research program based in the Czech Republic and Slovenia. He published a wide range of original work in semantics, philosophy of logic and language, philosophy of science, and metaphysics; but despite the indisputable quality of this work, he has gained little contemporary recognition. This article provides a brief introduction to his work, focussing mainly on basic ideas of his intensional semantics and his theory of 'constructions'

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Scarica in formato DOC, PDF, TXT o leggi online su Scribd
    Segnala contenuti inappropriati
    123 visualizzazioni29 pagine

    Holster, Andrew (2003) Introduction To Pavel Tichy and Transparent Intensional Logic

    Caricato da

    Tommaso Cimino
    Abstract Pavel Tichy (1936-1994) was a Czech philosopher who originally studied and worked at Charles University in Prague, and spent the second half of his life in New Zealand as a political refugee. Early in his career he invented intensional logic, simultaneously with Richard Montague, but published his version in 1971, slightly after Montague's 1970 papers, and has never been recognised for this achievement. But this was only the beginning of his work. He developed a highly original theory of semantics called Transparent Intensional Logic, which is the basis of an important research program based in the Czech Republic and Slovenia. He published a wide range of original work in semantics, philosophy of logic and language, philosophy of science, and metaphysics; but despite the indisputable quality of this work, he has gained little contemporary recognition. This article provides a brief introduction to his work, focussing mainly on basic ideas of his intensional semantics and his theory of 'constructions'

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Scarica in formato DOC, PDF, TXT o leggi online su Scribd
    Segnala contenuti inappropriati
    di 29

    Introduction to Pavel Tich and Transparent Intensional Logic.

    Life.
    Pavel Tich (1936-94) was born on 18 February 1936 in Brno, !echoslova"ia# $e s%u&ie& 'hiloso'hy an& (a%he(a%ics a% harles )niversi%y, Pra*ue, +ro( 19,4-6-, where he subse.uen%ly %au*h% in %he /e'ar%(en% o+ 0o*ic +ro( 1961-1968# 1n 1968192- he was a 3esearch Fellow in %he /e'ar%(en% o+ Philoso'hy, )niversi%y o+ 45e%er, 4n*lan&# 1n absence +ro( %he 6ocialis% 3e'ublic o+ !echoslova"ia, he was sen%ence& %o , years har& labor +or ille*ally e(i*ra%in*# $e (ove& %o 7ew 8ealan& in 1921, where he %au*h% +or %he res% o+ his li+e in %he /e'ar%(en% o+ Philoso'hy a% %he )niversi%y o+ 9%a*o, /une&in, beco(in* a +ull 'ro+essor in 1981# $e s'en% a year (1926-1922) as :n&rew ;ellon Pos%&oc%oral Fellow, /e'ar%(en% o+ Philoso'hy, )niversi%y o+ Pi%%sbur*h# 1n 199, he was %o re%urn %o %he !ech 3e'ublic, %o beco(e $ea& o+ /e'ar%(en% o+ 0o*ic a% harles )niversi%y, Pra*ue, bu% &ie& %ra*ically on <6 9c%ober, 1994, in /une&in, 7ew 8ealan&# $e was (arrie& %o =in&ra, an& %hey ha& %wo chil&ren#

    Introduction: Work and Reputation.


    Tich was a hi*hly ori*inal 'hiloso'her, se(an%icis%, an& lo*ician# Perha's his (os% en&urin* clai( %o +a(e lies in his %heory calle& Transparent Intensional Logic, %he cul(ina%ion o+ his e5%ensive wor" on se(an%ics an& lo*ic. This has beco(e %he basis o+ an i('or%an% research 'ro*ra(, base& in %he !ech 3e'ublic an& 6lova"ia, an& 1 will concen%ra%e in %his essay (ainly on e5'lainin* %he cen%ral conce'%s o+ %his %heory# Bu% his wor" inclu&es i('or%an% con%ribu%ions %o a wi&e ran*e o+ sub>ec%s in %he 'hiloso'hy o+ lan*ua*e, science, an& (e%a'hysics# For ins%ance, he is well "nown +or his 1924 'roo+ o+ %he +ailure o+ Po''er?s %heory o+ verisi(ili%u&e (or @li"eness %o %ru%h?)# harac%eris%ically, he was never sa%is+ie& wi%h *ivin* 'urely ne*a%ive cri%icis(, an& in %his case, wi%h his s%u&en% an& collabora%or Araha( 9&&ie, he wen% on %o &evelo' a new a''roach %o re&ress %he +laws in Po''er?s ini%ial conce'%ion# Tich?s wor" in se(an%ics an& 'hiloso'hical lo*ic is +ir(ly in %he %ra&i%ion o+ @ob>ec%ual se(an%ics?, *enerally re*ar&e& as ori*ina%in* wi%h Fre*e# The +irs% 'ar% o+ %he <-%h en%ury saw %he +irs% waves o+ %his a''roach in %he wor" o+ 3ussell, hurch, Ao&el, arna', Tars"i, an& %hen a *rowin* bo&y o+ wor" +ro( abou% 19,--192-# The secon& (a>or wa%ershe& in %he sub>ec% is *enerally re*ar&e& as %he wor" o+ 3ichar& ;on%a*ue, who in 192- 'ublishe& %he +irs% +or(al sys%e(s o+ wha% is now calle& Montague Grammar# The (ore *eneral na(e +or sys%e(s o+ %his "in& is intensional logic, or intensional semantics. This le& %o a 'roli+era%ion o+ subse.uen% wor" in (o&ern se(an%ics, enco('assin* a varie%y o+ &i++eren% a''roaches, inclu&in* 'ro*ra(s in :1 (:r%i+icial 1n%elli*ence), co('u%a%ional lo*ic, 'hiloso'hical lo*ic, an& new a''roaches %o conce'%ual analysis an& lin*uis%ics# 3e(ar"ably, Tich &iscovere& in%ensional lo*ic in&e'en&en%ly o+ ;on%a*ue, an& 'ublishe& his +irs% sys%e( (in 4n*lish) al(os% si(ul%aneously# Those who "now %his wor" o+%en re*ar& Tich?s sys%e( as (ore ele*an% an& 'ers'icuous %han ;on%a*ue?s, al%hou*h %he essen%ial i&ea is %he sa(e# Bu% un+or%una%ely +or Tich, his %heory was

    +irs% 'ublishe& in 1921, shor%ly a+%er ;on%a*ue?s 'a'ers o+ 192-, an& he has receive& li%%le cre&i% +or his ori*inali%y# Tich?s +irs% 'a'er on %his, in 4n*lish a% leas%, is B An Approach to Intensional Analysis (1921). (1 canno% >u&*e whe%her %he i&ea is +or(ula%e& in earlier 'a'ers in !ech, al%hou*h obviously, %he i&eas were so(e %i(e in *es%a%ion 1)# :+%er an ele*an% 'resen%a%ion o+ an in%ensional sys%e( o+ lo*ic, Tich conclu&es by &iscussin* ;on%a*ue?s 'a'er o+ 1969, BThe 7a%ure o+ 6o(e Philoso'hical 4n%i%iesC, an& &e(ons%ra%es a 'roble( wi%h i%, which his own %heory solves# To %his cri%i.ue o+ ;on%a*ue, he subse.uen%ly a&&s a +oo%no%e (+n# 1-D '#<94), B Added in proof: This particular objection loses its eight in the light of Montague!s "#ragmatics and Intensional Logic!, an article hich$ as not a%ailable hen I as riting the present paper. $, wi%h a brie+ bu% +or(ally 'recise observa%ion o+ how ;on%a*ue esca'es %he 'ar%icular 'roble( raise& a% %his 'oin%# :l%hou*h Tich 'ar%ially wi%h&raws his cri%icis(, %he sys%e( he 'resen%s here is &ecisively be%%er %han ;on%a*ue?s earlier a%%e('%s# ;on%a*ue only solve& %he 'roble(s sa%is+ac%orily in his %wo subse.uen% lan&(ar" 'a'ers o+ 192-, B4n*lish as a +or(al lan*ua*eC an& B)niversal *ra((arC, an& Tich was unaware o+ %hese 'a'ers when he wro%e his (1921)# This is one o+ %he +irs% cri%ical &iscussions o+ ;on%a*ue, an& i% shows Tich?s cri%ical acu(en, as well as %he in&e'en&ence o+ %heir conce'%ions# Bu% while ;on%a*ue?s %wo (ain 'a'ers on in%ensional lo*ic es%ablishe& his re'u%a%ion as a se(inal +i*ure in %he sub>ec%, Tich has *aine& al(os% no reco*ni%ion# ;on%a*ue was (ur&ere& in 1921, bu% he ra'i&ly beca(e one o+ %he (os% +a(ous (o&ern se(an%icis%s, whereas Tich has re(aine& obscure, &es'i%e (a"in* (any +ur%her a&vances in %he sub>ec%# : *oo& *au*e o+ %his lac" o+ reco*ni%ion is evi&en% in %he in+luen%ial source, &andboo' of Logic and Language, (van Ben%he( an& %er ;eulen (4&#), 1992)# This be*ins wi%h a lon* ar%icle on ;on%a*ue Ara((ar by Barbara Par%ee, which con%ains a cou'le o+ ac"nowle&*e(en%s o+ Tich, ('ar%icularly '#24)D bu% he is only (en%ione& in 'assin*D an& %he only re+erence is %o his 1988 boo", The (oundations of (rege!s Logic. $is con%ribu%ions %o %he %rea%(en% o+ %i(e in in%ensional lo*ic, an& %he conce'% o+ co('osi%ionali%y, are co('le%ely overloo"e& in %he ar%icles on Temporality (6%ee&(an), an& )ompositionality (=ansen) in %he sa(e volu(e, &es'i%e his ori*inal an& challen*in* ar%icles on %hese sub>ec%s# This brin*s us %o %he &i++icul% sub>ec% o+ Tich?s re'u%a%ion# Tich?s wor" is s%ill no% wi&ely "nown, e5ce'% 'erha's in %he !ech 3e'ublic an& 6lova"ia, an& a(on* a +ew o+ his collea*ues an& s%u&en%s +ro( his %i(e in 7ew 8ealan&, an& his re'u%a%ion has ye% %o be se%%le&# $owever, in %he li*h% o+ his ori*inal &iscoveries, an& %he &ee' in%eres% an& hi*h re*ar& shown by a nu(ber o+ i('or%an% con%e('orary 'hiloso'hers, i% see(s inevi%able %ha%, li"e Fre*e be+ore hi(, his achieve(en%s will even%ually be reassesse& in a +ar (ore 'osi%ive li*h% by scholars in %he +u%ure# : nu(ber o+ reasons can be +oun& +or %his lac" o+ reco*ni%ion, bu% %he (os% obvious is a 'ole(ical +ea%ure o+ Tich?s wor", which se%s hi( a% o&&s wi%h (any in+luen%ial con%e('orary wri%ers# $e wro%e (any cri%ical an& challen*in* co((en%aries on %he a''roaches o+ o%her wri%ers# These serve %o es%ablish %he con%e5% +or 'ro'osin* solu%ions o+ his own# $is cri%ical s%u&ies are very i('or%an%, an& e5'lain (uch o+ %he ra%ionale +or his crea%ive i&eas# $e has uni.ue insi*h%s in%o earlier wri%ers, such as Fre*e, 3ussell, hurch, arna', Tars"i, an& Po''er# $e cri%ici!es (o&ern
    1

    Pavel ;a%erna has in+or(e& (e %ha% %he ori*ins o+ T10 are +irs% evi&en% in Tich?s (1968) B6(ysl a 'roce&uraC (B6ense an& 'roce&ureC), an& in his (1969) B1n%ensions in Ter(s o+ Turin* ;achinesC, bu% 1 have no% rea& %hese 'a'ers#

    <

    in%er're%ers o+ Fre*e an& 3ussell, in 'ar%icular, ar*uin* %ha% au%hori%ies such as /u((e%% an& Euine have (isun&ers%oo& %heir i&eas, an& i('ose& %heir own views ins%ea&# $e also *ives shar' an& succinc% ar*u(en%s a*ains% a''roaches o+ (any o+ his con%e('oraries# $e was es'ecially o''ose& %o a cer%ain &o(inan% line o+ &evelo'(en% in (i&-%o-la%e <-%h cen%ury lo*ic an& se(an%ics, which he calls %he @lin*uis%ic? %ra&i%ion, %y'i+ie& by %he %echni.ue o+ @se(an%ic ascen%? %o solve se(an%ic 'ara&o5es, or in%er're% belie+ s%a%e(en%s (see below)# :(on* %hose whose views he cri%ici!es on one 'oin% or ano%her are Euine, ;on%a*ue, Fri'"e, $in%i""a, /u((e%%, Fleene, Pu%na(, Aoo&(an, Prior, 0ewis, 6%alna"er, resswell, 3ichar&s, /ow%y, Par%ee, Tenan% - an& Tich hi(sel+# ($e cri%ici!es so(e o+ his own earlier views in e5ac%ly %he sa(e %one %ha% he cri%ici!es o%hers)# ;a%erna (1994, '#<) observes %ha% %hese au%hors al(os% never res'on&e&# Tich?s cri%icis( o+ (uch con%e('orary wor" in se(an%ics (ay a''ear ne*a%ive, in %he +irs% ins%ance# Bu% his cri%i.ues are by no (eans ne*a%iveG %hey are ra%her his way o+ in%ro&ucin* 'roble(s, be+ore o++erin* new solu%ions o+ his own# 4ven his (os% ori*inal %heories are in%ro&uce& by +irs% o++erin* cri%i.ues o+ o%her a''roaches an& o%her scholars, be+ore 'resen%in* his own ori*inal con%ribu%ions# $is boo" The (oundations of (rege!s Logic is an e5a('le - i% (i*h% have been be%%er en%i%le& The Theory of Transparent Intensional Logic. :n& (any o+ his 'a'ers are %i%le& or in%ro&uce& as cri%i.ues o+ o%her wri%ers, al%hou*h %heir *rea%es% in%eres% o+%en lies in %he ori*inal al%erna%ive analyses he o++ere&# Tich see(e& %o lac" any ins%inc% +or sel+-'ro(o%ion, o+%en a vi%al in*re&ien% +or ob%ainin* reco*ni%ion o+ new i&eas# The social &i(ensions o+ in%ellec%ual success are well reco*ni!e& in (o&ern sociolo*y o+ science H 'o'ular success or +ailure is no% &e%er(ine& by %he .uali%y o+ in%ellec%ual wor" alone, es'ecially in +iel&s %ha% are youn* an& i&eolo*ically +ra*(en%e&, li"e (o&ern se(an%ics, an& Tich woul& no &oub% (a"e a *oo& case-s%u&y o+ %his# Bu% while +ew %ar*e%s o+ his cri%icis( have res'on&e&, %he 'roble(s he raise& have re(aine& cen%ral issues# :n& 'erha's a &o!en or so wri%ers who have consi&ere& his %heories seriously have been &ee'ly i('resse& H or in&ee&, >u&*e& %ha% he has &ecisively solve& so(e 'roble(s o+ +un&a(en%al i('or%anceI ollabora%ors in %he !ech T10 'ro*ra( have (a&e i('or%an% &evelo'(en%s o+ his %heories, an& 'rovi&e& use+ul cri%ical a''raisals an& 'resen%a%ions# Jri%ers such as Pavel ;a%erna, Araha( 9&&ie, ;arie /u!i, an& o%hers, have e('hasi!e& %heir &eb% %o Tich, whose %heories have 'rovi&e& %he ori*inal s%ar%in* 'oin% +or %heir a''roaches %o (any 'roble(s# 1 will concen%ra%e in %his ar%icle on e5'lainin* so(e o+ %he cen%ral i&eas o+ Trans'aren% 1n%ensional 0o*ic, wi%h %he ai( o+ in%ro&ucin* %he rea&er %o Tich?s *eneral a''roach# : +ew &e%aile& e5a('les are *iven, bu% %hese are only illus%ra%iveG i% will be clear %ha% %his ar%icle is +ar +ro( a +ull or a&e.ua%e su((ary o+ his wor"#

    Objectual e!antics.
    The i&ea o+ objectual semantics is cre&i%e& %o Fre*e, an& is +un&a(en%al %o Tich?s a''roach# The s%ar%in* 'oin% is +ac%ual lan*ua*e, in which we co('ose an en&less varie%y o+ co('le5 e5'ressions, calle& sentences or statements, usin* a li(i%e& se% o+ basic terms, or ords# Je use lan*ua*e %o co((unica%e in+or(a%ion, re+erre& %o as @e5'ressin* +ac%s?, or @s%a%in* 'ro'osi%ions?# 45'ressions such as sen%ences an& wor&s are calle& linguistic or syntactic items. These are wha% we +in& wri%%en on a 'a*e# Je 'erceive %he( as 'hysical sy(bols o+ &is%inc% %y'es# Je re+er %o %he sy(bols

    %he(selves by usin* .uo%a%ion (ar"s, e#*# %he wor& @(oon? is a %y'e o+ sy(bol, no% %o be con+use& wi%h %he (oon i%sel+, which is a 'hysical ob>ec%# )sin* %hese sy(bols %o co((unica%e re.uires us %o un&ers%an& %he (eanin*s o+ %he sy(bolsG we have %o learn %ha% @%he (oon? re+ers %o an ob>ec%, %he (oon# Bu% %he connec%ion be%ween %he sy(bols an& %he ob>ec%s, which is connec%e& by %he meanings of the symbols, is very (ys%erious - i% al(os% see(s (a*icalI $ow &o wor&s @(ean %hin*s?K $ow &o %hey (a"e connec%ions %o e5%ernal reali%yK The i&ea o+ objectual semantics is no% really %o e5'lain ho wor&s (ean %hin*s, in %he sense o+ a *ivin* a causal e5'lana%ion, bu% >us% %o &e+ine hat %hey (ean# The ai( is %o s'eci+y %he &irec% connec%ions be%ween %he e*pressions an& %he things, or @ob>ec%s o+ re+erence?# Bu% we shoul& e('hasi!e so(e%hin* o+ crucial i('or%ance here +ro( %he be*innin*G %he meanings o+ e5'ressions canno% be >us% %he physical things %ha% %hey ha''en %o re+er %o# 4#*# %he (eanin* o+ @%he (oon? is no% >us% %he 'hysical ob>ec% (%he 'hysical (oon)D ra%her, i% a''ears %o be so(e%hin* @conce'%ual?, %ha% co(es be%ween %he e5'ression an& %he 'hysical ob>ec%# 9b>ec%ual se(an%ics &oes no% assu(e %ha% (eanin*s are i&en%i+ie& si('ly wi%h actual references. The %er( @ob>ec% o+ re+erence? as i% was use& above is %o be %a"en in a wi&e sense, %o inclu&e @abs%rac% ob>ec%s? H +or ins%ance, @conce'%s? are re*ar&e& by Fre*e as ob>ec%s o+ (eanin*# This a''roach is %o be con%ras%e& wi%h non-ob>ec%ual %heories o+ (eanin*, which %y'ically a''eal %o %he causal 'rocesses %ha% un&er'in lan*ua*e use - bu% 'rocesses %ha% are no% e5'lici%ly (en%ione& by %he e5'ressions %he(selves# For ins%ance, so(e 'hiloso'hers e5'lica%e (eanin*s as mental states (e#*# $u(e), or social beha%iors (e#*# %he la%er Ji%%*ens%ein)# These "in&s o+ %heories in%er're% %he (eanin*s o+ e5'ressions as %he (en%al s%a%es %hey con>ure u', or as behavioris% sys%e(s o+ rules +or usin* e5'ressions H even %hou*h %he e5'ressions in .ues%ion &o no% e5'lici%ly (or even i('lici%ly) re+er %o any such (en%al s%a%es or rules o+ lan*ua*e behavior# 4#*# when we say @1% is rainin*?, we only re+er %o a +ac% abou% %he wea%her H no% %o our (en%al i(a*e o+ @rain?, nor %o behavioris% rules abou% %he a''ro'ria%e use o+ %he e5'ression# Thus non-ob>ec%ual %heories involve &e%ours in%o real(s o+ ob>ec%s or 'rocesses which un&erlie %he use o+ lan*ua*e, bu% which are no% (en%ione& by %he e5'ressions bein* analyse&# This "in& o+ &e%our is re>ec%e& in ob>ec%ual se(an%ics, which see"s a sys%e( o+ &irec% associa%ions be%ween e5'ressions an& @ob>ec%s o+ re+erence?, %o re'resen% @li%eral (eanin*s? o+ e5'ressions# 1% is %his +ocus on %he @li%eral (eanin*? %ha% &is%in*uishes ob>ec%ual se(an%ics as a s%u&y o+ the logic of meaning, ra%her %han a s%u&y in an%hro'olo*y or 'sycholo*y# 7ow o+ course, as hu(an bein*s, our use o+ lan*ua*e ac%ually involves (en%al s%a%es, an& learnin* lan*ua*e ac%ually involves social behavior# Bu% %his &oes no% (ean %ha% (en%al s%a%es or behaviors are a 'ar% o+ %he meanings o+ e5'ressions. onsi&er %he analo*y wi%h &escribin* a cer%ain bri&*e# :n objectual description can be *iven by an en*ineerin* s'eci+ica%ion o+ %he (a%erials an& &i(ensions o+ %he bri&*e# The bri&*e (i*h% consis% o+ a cer%ain arran*e(en% o+ s%eel *ir&ers, o+ cer%ain si!es, wel&e& %o*e%her in cer%ain ways, an& so on# 7a%urally, we also build %he bri&*e, we percei%e %he bri&*e, an& we use %he bri&*e# Bu% we &on?% have %o &escribe how a bri&*e is buil%, or how i% loo"s %o %he eye, or wha% we use i% +or, %o &e+ine i% as an ob>ec%# 6i(ilarly, ob>ec%ual se(an%ics a%%e('%s %o &e+ine (eanin*s &irec%ly, wi%hou% s'eci+yin* how we learn (eanin*s, or use (eanin*s, or 'erceive (eanin*s# 9ur abili%y %o learn an& use (eanin*s is a +un&a(en%al cons%rain% on wha% %hey can beG we can?% have a *oo& %heory i+ i% i('lies %ha% (eanin*s are i('ossible %o learn, or

    i('ossible %o use# 6o an ob>ec%ual %heory (us% be consis%en% wi%h a reasonable epistemology of meaning. Bu% ob>ec%ual se(an%ics se'ara%es %he %woG %he e'is%e(olo*y o+ (eanin* is no% 'ar% o+ %he &e+ini%ion o+ wha% (eanin* is#

    The Objects of Reference.


    The obvious &i++erence be%ween bri&*es an& (eanin*s, in %he analo*y above, is %ha% %he +or(er are concre%e 'hysical ob>ec%s, while %he la%%er are very @abs%rac%?# Je wan% %o &e+ine (eanin* as a sys%e( o+ &irec% connec%ions be%ween e*pressions an& objects: bu% wha% are %he ob>ec%s, an& wha% are %he connec%ionsK The connections are easies% %o &eal wi%hG we will si('ly &e+ine %he( by &irec% @+unc%ional connec%ions? be%ween e5'ressions an& ob>ec%s# Tha% is, we s'eci+y (a%he(a%ical +unc%ions, which (a' e5'ressions %o ob>ec%s, wi%hou% worryin* (ini%ially a% leas%) abou% how %hese are i('le(en%e& in 'rac%ice# 9ur 'rac%ical *ras' o+ (eanin* clearly involves %hin"in*, an& a co('le5 co*ni%ive (achinery o+ (en%al s%a%es, +unc%ional s%a%es o+ %he brain, an& so +or%h, co(es in%o 'lay when we ac%ually use lan*ua*e# Bu% %his &e%aile& (achinery is 'recisely wha% ob>ec%ual se(an%ics i*nores# This is a co((on &evice in scien%i+ic %heoriesG e#*# %he classical %heory o+ *ases s'eci+ies a rela%ionshi'G #+ , n-T, connec%in* 'ressure, volu(e an& %e('era%ure, wi%hou% ini%ially e5'lainin* ho %his connec%ion is *enera%e&# This is a co((on "in& o+ @(a%he(a%ical i&eali!a%ion?, +oun& %hrou*hou% science# The na%ure o+ %he objects is (uch (ore 'roble(a%ic, however, 'ar%ly because %heir @abs%rac%? .uali%y (a"es %he( &i++icul% %o &e+ine# The e5a('le o+ %he %er( @%he (oon? re+errin* %o %he ('hysical) (oon (ay su**es% %ha% we can use physical objects as re+eren%s, bu% %his si('le e5a('le is (islea&in*, as Fre*e showe&# (Pla%o reco*ni!e& %his %oo in his Theatatus an& o%her &ialo*ues#) $ere are %hree reasons %he si('le i&ea o+ @re+eren%ial (eanin*? +ails# Firs%, lan*ua*e con%ains abs%rac% lo*ical %er(sG +or ins%ance, wha% @ob>ec%s? &o %er(s li"e @an&?, @or?, @no%?, @%he?, @all?, an& @so(e? re+er %oK These have essen%ial +unc%ions in +ac%ual lan*ua*eG bu% %hey surely &o no% re+er %o physical ob>ec%s# 1+ we wan% %o associa%e %he( wi%h @ob>ec%s?, %hese nee& %o be ra%her @abs%rac%? ob>ec%s# (1n +ac%, %he &o(inan% @+or(alis%? %ra&i%ion o+ <-%h lo*ic baul"s a% %his 'roble(, an& %rea%s @lo*ical %er(s? as &i++eren% in "in& %o @e('irical? %er(s, an& (erely &e+ines @syn%ac%ic rules? +or %heir use, wi%hou% assi*nin* any @ob>ec%ual (eanin*?D bu% in ob>ec%ual %heories, %hey are in%er're%e& as abs%rac% +unc%ions o+ one "in& or ano%her#) 6econ&, even si('le %er(s li"e @%he (oon? are 'roble(a%ic, because al%hou*h @%he (oon? (ay re+er %o %he 'hysical (oon, i% connec%s %o %his ob>ec% %hrou*h wha% we collo.uially call a @conce'%?# This is (ore obvious wi%h a %er( li"e @unicorn?G %here are no 'hysical unicorns, an& @unicorn? &oes no% re+er in +ac% %o real, 'hysical unicorns# Bu% we clearly have a concept o+ unicorns, an& i% is (os% na%ural %o %a"e %he %er( %o re+er in %he +irs% 'lace %o %he conce'%# 6i(ilarly, we can have a conce'% o+ @a (oon o+ =u'i%er?, even i+ i% has never been observe&, or i+ i% is un"nown whe%her %here is any such %hin*# Je &escribe %his conce'% in lan*ua*e, e5'ress a belie+ %ha% %here is a (oon o+ =u'i%er, an& subse.uen%ly a%%e('% %o observe i%# 6o even %he si('les% "in&s o+ e('irical %er(s see( %o re.uire a level o+ abs%rac% ob>ec%s H @conce'%s? - %o in%er're%# This is one o+ Fre*e?s +un&a(en%al insi*h%s# Thir&, we un&ers%an& co('le5 e5'ressions, no% >us% sin*le wor&s# .tatements are %he (os% i('or%an%G we say %ha% %hey e*press propositions, or %ha% %hey refer to facts. Bu% wha% are propositions, or facts/ They are no% >us% %he s%a%e(en%s or sen%ences H i#e# %he lin*uis%ic i%e(s - %hey are wha% %he s%a%e(en%s or sen%ences mean,

    an& in our ob>ec%ual %heory, %hey belon* %o %he class o+ objects %ha% we use %o e5'lica%e %he (eanin*s o+ %he e5'ressions. 9n %he o%her han&, 'ro'osi%ions can be (a&e about physical objects and e%entsG bu% %hey are no% %hose 'hysical ob>ec%s or even%s %he(selves# :*ain, i% is na%ural %o say %ha% 'ro'osi%ions e5'ress conceptions 0 or concepts of ho the orld might be# This su**es%s %ha% %here are t o le%els of "meaning!: e5'ressions in a lan*ua*e +irs% o+ all denote wha% we in%ui%ively call @conce'%s?D an& %hese @conce'%s? (ay or (ay no% refer to specific actual things, or actual %alues. Fre*e 'ro'ose& %he +irs% &e%aile& %heories o+ %his "in&, an& his a''roach ul%i(a%ely le& %o %he &evelo'(en% o+ intensional logics# 1n %he si('les% un&ers%an&in* o+ in%ensional lo*ic, we can %a"e %he @conce'%ual ob>ec%s? %o be re'resen%e& by wha% are calle& intensions, an& @ac%ual values? %o be re'resen%e& by e*tensions. Two-level theory of meaning# 2*pressions. LBThe (oonCM
    (&eno%es) (re+ers)

    Intensions. LThe (oonM


    L@conce'%s?M

    2*tensions# LThe actual moonM

    L@ac%ual values?M (i&en%i+iesNsa%is+iesNins%an%ia%es)

    1 shoul& has%en %o say %ha% Tich &oes not i&en%i+y @conce'%s? or @(eanin*s? as in%ensions# (1n +ac%, he &oes no% use @conce'%s? as a %echnical %er( in his own %heories, an& i% is only bein* use& in an in+or(al sense here)# Je will see shor%ly why he re>ec%s %his @%wo-level? %heory as %oo si('lis%ic, bu% 1 will +irs% e5'lain %he in%er're%a%ion i% ini%ially su**es%s# 1n %his %wo-level %heory, %he soli& line +ro( e*pressions %o intensions (or %he denotation1 in&ica%es %ha% %his is %a"en as %he 'ri(ary rela%ion o+ meaningD %he rela%ion %o e*tensions or actual %alues (or %he reference1 is secon&ary# The ac%ual re+erence is no% i%sel+ 'ar% o+ %he conceptual meaning, since %he (eanin* o+ an e5'ression is *enerally %he sa(e hether or not it refers to an actual object# 4#*# we un&ers%an& %he (eanin* o+ %er(s li"e @a (oon o+ =u'i%er? be+ore we learn whe%her any%hin* sa%is+ies %he(# (The re>ec%ion o+ references as 'rovi&in* meanings is .ui%e wi&ely acce'%e& H e5ce'% 'erha's +or so(e s'ecial &is'u%es abou% whe%her cer%ain "'ri(i%ive (eanin*s? (i*h% be base& on a &irec% "nowle&*e o+ %he re+erences)# Je nee& &i++eren% na(es +or %he %wo "in&s o+ rela%ionsG here 1 have use& @&eno%es? an& @re+ers?, which is co((on, al%hou*h %here is s%ill no wi&ely a*ree& s%an&ar& no%a%ion# 1% shoul& also be e('hasi!e& %ha% intensions are no% e5clu&e& +ro( %he class o+ actual %alues 0 +or we can also re+er %o %he( as things# 4#*# @Tich?s +avori%e in%ension? &eno%es a hi*her-or&er conce'%, bu% refers to so(e @ac%ual in%ension? H 'erha's %ha% o+ @'oli%ical +ree&o(?, +or ins%ance# $owever, (os% "in&s o+ actual %alues are no% in%ensions (or conce'%s) H e#*# %he ac%ual (oon, a 'hysical ob>ec%, is no% a conce'% (al%hou*h %here is a conce'% o+ i%)#

    1n +ac%, (os% "in&s o+ actual %alues are no% si('le concre%e ob>ec%s ei%herG one e5a('le, %o be e5a(ine& shor%ly, are truth %alues, which are %a"en as %he ac%ual values o+ propositions. This "in& o+ %wo-level s%ruc%ure is co((on %o (any ob>ec%ual %heories, bu% Tich re>ec%e& %his sche(e, an& in%ro&uce& a %hir& level o+ s%ruc%ure, which loo"s so(e%hin* li"e %hisG Tichys three-level theory of meaning# 2*pressions.
    (&e'ic%s) (&eno%es) (re+ers)

    )onstructions.

    Intensions#
    (*enera%esNcons%ruc%s)

    2*tensions.
    (i&en%i+iesNsa%is+ies)

    The (ain 'oin% here is %ha% Tich in%ro&uces a new level, which he calls constructions. This is his ra&ical inven%ion# 1n his view, co('le5 e5'ressions &o no% &irec%ly 'ic" ou% intensionsD ins%ea&, %hey re'resen% (@&e'ic%?) ays of constructing or generating intensions 0 from simpler constructions and intensions# For co('le5 e5'ressions are un&ers%oo& +ro( %heir si('ler 'ar%sD we construct %he (eanin* o+ a co('le5 %er( +ro( %he (eanin*s o+ si('le %er(s +ro( i% is co('ose&D an& i% is %his 'rocess o+ construction %ha% Tich +ocuse& on# 1% is a &i(ension o+ (eanin* %ha% in%ensional lo*ic alone &oes no% &escribe# The @(eanin*? o+ an e5'ression is now seen as %he construction# ons%ruc%ions are sai& %o be structured objects, because ra%her %han >us% *ras'in* %he( as @ob>ec%s?, %hey involve us in *ras'in* s%ruc%ure& @'roce&ures?# Jhile %his is s%ill an ob>ec%ual %heory, (eanin* is no lon*er a si('le &eno%a%ion rela%ion, as in %he %wo-level %heory# Be+ore *oin* on %o illus%ra%e so(e &e%ails o+ Tich?s %heory, 1 will brie+ly co((en% on so(e i('or%an% bac"*roun& issuesG wha% are conce'%s, or abs%rac% ob>ec%sK 1s i% 'lausible %o have a %heory %ha% a''eals %o such %hin*sK :n& wha% is %he ai( o+ lo*icK

    "bstract Objects and Logic.


    Je have a''eale& %o a sys%e( o+ @abs%rac% ob>ec%s? %o 'rovi&e ob>ec%s o+ (eanin* H bu% wha% are %heyK Fre*e in%ro&uce& a class o+ @ once'%s?, an& insis%e& %hey are nei%her 'hysical nor (en%al - in 'ar%icular, %hey are no% @%hou*h%s?, or (en%al i(a*es# The belie+ in %he e5is%ence o+ abs%rac% ob>ec%s is calle& #latonism. :n& %his brin*s us %o a s%ru**le 'hiloso'hers have ha& over (any cen%uries H ever since Pla%o H o+ un&ers%an&in* wha% @abs%rac% ob>ec%s? coul& be# $ow &o %hey e5is%K $ow &o we 'erceive %he(K :re %hey necessary %o our 'ic%ure o+ %he worl& H or are %hey (erely +i*(en%s o+ %he 'hiloso'hical i(a*ina%ionK This is one o+ %he *rea% his%orical &ivi&es in Jes%ern 'hiloso'hyG 'hiloso'hers who acce'% abs%rac% ob>ec%s in %heir sche(e o+

    %hin*s are calle& #latonists, or so(e%i(es metaphysical realists, while %hose who re>ec% %he( are o+%en calle& nominalists, or anti3realists. Tich, li"e Fre*e, was a Pla%onis%# 1n +ac%, every serious a%%e('% a% *ivin* an ob>ec%ual %heory o+ se(an%ics see(s %o incor'ora%e so(e +or( o+ Pla%onis( H because %he class o+ concre%e e5is%in* %hin*s is no% su++icien% %o re'resen% %he richness o+ %he conce'%s %ha% we use lan*ua*e %o re+er %o an& &iscuss# This re(ains a (ain i&eolo*ical &ivi&e %hrou*hou% <-%h en%ury se(an%ics# Those who re>ec% ob>ec%ual se(an%ics H li"e %he la%er Ji%%*ens%ein, Euine, an& (any o%hers H &o so 'ri(arily because %hey re>ec% %he i&ea o+ abs%rac% ob>ec%s, which %hey re*ar& as viciously @(e%a'hysical?# 6ince ob>ec%ual se(an%ics re.uires abs%rac% ob>ec%s, %hey re>ec% ob>ec%ual se(an%ics, an& %ry %o e5'lain @(eanin*s? by a''ealin* only %o non-abs%rac% %hin*s H %y'ically, 'hysical or (en%al ob>ec%s an& even%s, or ac%ual hu(an behavior, or lin*uis%ic use# 1 will no% *o in%o %he *eneral &is'u%e abou% (e%a'hysics here# 1ns%ea&, 1 su**es% we shoul& si('ly si&e-s%e' i% %o be*in wi%h - >us% as we si&e-s%e' i% when we learn (a%he(a%ics# For al%hou*h (a%he(a%ics is %y'ically e5'laine& in a @Pla%onis%? (anner (by a''ealin* %o %he e5is%ence o+ %he na%ural nu(bers +or e5a('le), we rarely worry abou% (e%a'hysics when we learn (a%he(a%ics# 9ur +irs% concern is >us% how i% @wor"s?, in a very 'rac%ical sense# Je can re*ar& an ob>ec%ual %heory o+ se(an%ics in %he +irs% 'lace as 'rovi&in* a frame or' +or *ivin* s'eci+ic @nor(a%ive analyses? o+ in%eres%in* 'ar%s o+ real lan*ua*es# The %es% is whe%her %he +ra(ewor" allows an accura%e analysis o+ our >u&*(en%s abou% lo*ical in+erences, se(an%ic rela%ionshi's, co('u%a%ions o+ in+or(a%ion, an& so on# This is so(e%hin* we can chec" in&e'en&en%ly o+ whe%her we a*ree on (e%a'hysics# Je will soon see an ar*u(en%, +or ins%ance, %ha% %he intensional frame or' alone is si('ly no% rich enou*h %o re+lec% %he lo*ic o+ 'ro'osi%ional belie+ accura%ely H bu% %his ar*u(en% has no%hin* %o &o wi%h abs%rac% ob>ec%sG i% has %o &o wi%h >u&*(en%s abou% lo*ical in+erences, an& %he in+or(a%ion we can sensibly e5%rac% +ro( various "in&s o+ 'ro'osi%ions# 7ow %he *eneral +ra(ewor" o+ any ob>ec%ual %heory inevi%ably see(s %o involve cer%ain @(e%a'hysical? i&eas, an& we can har&ly i*nore %his# Bu% 1 %hin" we can sus'en& >u&*(en% on %he (os% abstract .ues%ions abou% @(e%a'hysics?, which 'hiloso'hers o+%en li"e %o be*in wi%h - a% leas% un%il a+%er we see whe%her an ob>ec%ual %heory @wor"s? or no% as an e++ec%ive %ool +or lo*ical analysis# /oes a *iven %heory success+ully ca'%ure %he (echanics o+ (eanin*, evi&en% in or&inary (eanin* co('u%a%ion, or&inary >u&*(en%s abou% conce'%ual in+erences an& lo*ical rela%ionshi's, an& so +or%hK Tich (ain%aine& %he ob>ec%ive reali%y o+ cer%ain "in&s o+ abs%rac% ob>ec%s, an& his ar*u(en%s abou% %his are very in%eres%in*, an& wor%h s%u&yin* in %heir own ri*h%# $e also *ives ori*inal analyses o+ various %ra&i%ional (e%a'hysical ar*u(en%s# Bu% 1 %hin" his conclusions abou% (e%a'hysical 'roble(s can be se'ara%e& +ro( %he i((e&ia%e ai( o+ his se(an%ic %heories, which is %o 'rovi&e a +ra(ewor" +or %he s%u&y o+ (eanin* as we "now i%, ra%her %han %o a&vance a (e%a'hysical %heory +or i%s own sa"e# 1n %his res'ec%, Tich?s no%ion o+ wha% logic is abou% is also an i('or%an% brea" +ro( earlier %ra&i%ions %ha% &o(ina%e& (i&-<-%h en%ury lo*ic an& 'hiloso'hy# $e %a"es lo*ic %o be base& on %he s%u&y o+ meaning. Jhile he in%ro&uces a nu(ber o+ +or(al sys%e(s %o hel' 'er+or( lo*ical analysis, he is no% in%eres%e& in %he s%u&y o+ formalism +or i%s own sa"e# For(al sys%e(s are only 'ro'ose& %o hel' wi%h %he analysis o+ (eanin*# $e is 'ar%icularly o''ose& %o %he @+or(alis%? 'ro*ra( associa%e&

    wi%h $ilber%# This a''roach *enerally %a"es lo*ic as a s%u&y o+ formal systems, or 'urely symbolic systems, or @*ra((ars?, wi%hou% re+erence %o (eanin* as i% is e5e('li+ie& in real lan*ua*e# This a''roach re(ains co((on in (any (o&ern a''roaches %o lo*ic as %he s%u&y o+ @abs%rac% al*ebras?# These are o+%en s%u&ie& as 'urely +or(al s%ruc%ures, wi%h %he 'o%en%ial %o re'resen% in+or(a%ion in one way or ano%her, bu% &ivorce& +ro( %he analysis o+ (eanin* in na%ural lan*ua*e# Tich is o''ose& %o %his "in& o+ a''roach, an& insis%s %ha% logic is dri%en by meaning, an& shoul& no% be %rea%e& as an au%ono(ous @+or(al? &isci'line se'ara%e& +ro( %he lo*ical analysis o+ (eanin*# This beca(e very clear in %he las% (a>or 'ro>ec% he was en*a*e& in be+ore his &ea%h, which he calle& @;eanin* /riven Ara((ar? (;/A)G
    B;/A is base& on %he hy'o%hesis %ha% +or( an& (eanin* are inse'arable an& %ha% an a&e.ua%e *ra((ar (us% *enera%e no% >us% well-+or(e& sen%ences bu% sen%ence-(eanin* 'airs# (;eanin*s are i&en%i+ie& wi%h lo*ical cons%ruc%ions, a no%ion 'ro'ose& an& e5'oun&e& in 'revious 'ublica%ions, es'ecially The (oundations of (rege!s Logic. )C LFro(G :bs%rac% o+ urren% 3esearch Pro>ec%, 1994M#

    This re+lec%s Tich?s convic%ion %ha% our understanding of meanings is a 'ri(ary source o+ "nowle&*e abou% %he +or(al (echanics o+ lan*ua*e, an& is essen%ial %o un&ers%an&in* %he real 'rocessin* o+ in+or(a%ion in lan*ua*e# For(alis% a''roaches re>ec% %his 'oin% o+ view, o+%en because o+ 'hiloso'hical ob>ec%ions %o @abs%rac% ob>ec%s?# For(alis%s o+%en e5'ress %he &esire %o @clean u'? lo*ic by e>ec%in* %he @e%hereal? &o(ain o+ (eanin*s, or abs%rac% ob>ec%s, an& s%ic"in* &irec%ly %o %he level o+ e5'ressions an& +or(al rules o+ syn%a5# They &o wan% %o s%u&y how +or(al sys%e(s can be use& %o re'resen% informationG bu% %heir conce'% o+ in+or(a%ion is abs%rac%e& +ro( %he analysis o+ (eanin* in real lan*ua*es# Jhe%her a +or(alis% a''roach %o in+or(a%ion %heory or %o na%ural lan*ua*e 'rocessin* can succee& wi%hou% a%%en%ion %o a %heory o+ (eanin* is no% a .ues%ion 1 will %ry %o co((en% on# Bu% 1 %hin" %he re+usal %o con%e('la%e ob>ec%ual se(an%ics because o+ 'rior 'hiloso'hical convic%ions a*ains% @(e%a'hysics? is 're(a%ure, an& a&heren%s o+ %he 'urely +or(al a''roach are (issin* ou% on so(e o+ %he (os% e5ci%in* &evelo'(en%s in <-%h en%ury se(an%ics an& lo*ic +or %he wron* reasons# $owever, al%hou*h we can use+ully si&e-s%e' *eneral (e%a'hysical con%roversies +or a %i(e, i% shoul& be e('hasi!e& %ha% conceptual epistemology re(ains cen%ral in Tich?s %heory# :n accoun% o+ (eanin* cer%ainly nee&s su''or% +ro( a 'lausible accoun% o+ conce'%ual "nowle&*e# ;any o+ Tich?s ar*u(en%s a''eal &irec%ly %o 'rinci'les or observa%ions abou% conce'%ual "nowle&*e an& conce'%ual >u&*(en%s# $e also a&vances a (ore *eneral %heory o+ an @e'is%e(ic +ra(ewor"?, as a basis +or his (ain %heory o+ se(an%ics# 1 will no% %ry %o *ive a *eneral accoun% o+ %his 'ar% o+ his %heory here# Bu% one 'rinci'le is o+ s'ecial i('or%ance %o his a''roach, which 1 will &escribe ne5%#

    #o!positionalit$.
    :+%er %he Fre*ean no%ion o+ objectual semantics, 'erha's %he (os% cen%ral 'rinci'le in Tich?s a''roach is calle& %he principle of compositionality. Tich also calls %his %he (rege3)hurch principle, an& i&en%i+ies i% as ori*ina%in* wi%h Fre*e, an& bein* *iven 'recision by :lon!o hurch (who a+%er 3ussell was Fre*e?s (os% i('or%an% early in%er're%er an& a&voca%e)#

    This 'rinci'le s%a%es %ha%G The meaning of a comple* e*pression is a function of the meanings of its parts, and the ay they are combined. This brin*s us bac" %o a +un&a(en%al observa%ion abou% lan*ua*eG we have only a li(i%e& nu(ber o+ basic %er(s H wor&s H bu% we can co(bine %he( in an en&less varie%y o+ ways %o 'ro&uce (eanin*+ul co('le5 e5'ressions# :n& ye%, we usually see( %o un&ers%an& %he (eanin*s o+ %he co('le5 e5'ressions >us% +ro( our "nowle&*e o+ %he (eanin*s o+ co('onen% %er(s# o('le5 (eanin*s are buil% u' by co(binin* (eanin*+ul 'ar%s# This is a "in& o+ @'ar%-whole &e%er(inis(?G %he co(bina%ion o+ 'ar%s &e%er(ines %he whole, wi%hou% a&&in* any%hin* e5%ra or e5%ernal# 7ow %his 'rinci'le is no% (ean% %o rule ou% %he +ac% %ha% real lan*ua*e is o+%en ambiguous H e5'ressions &o no% always &e%er(ine a single (eanin*+ul rea&in*# 6o(e e5'ressions have (ul%i'le (eanin*s H 'uns# Bu% &ealin* wi%h 'uns is consi&ere& a +airly %rivial 'roble(, an& %his har&ly %hrea%ens %he Princi'le o+ o('osi%ionali%y# : (ore serious 'roble( is wi%h wha% are calle& de dicto an& de re su''osi%ions, where %he sa(e e5'ression a''ears %o %a"e on al%erna%ive %y'es o+ (eanin* in %wo &i++eren% con%e5%s# This was a s%u(blin* 'oin% +or Fre*e?s %heory H an& i% is a 'oin% where he a''ears %o aban&on %he 'rinci'le o+ @co('osi%ionali%y?# This is a %es%-case +or Tich?s %heory, which solves %he 'roble( wi%hou% aban&onin* co('osi%ionali%y, as we will see shor%ly# Je (us% reco*ni!e %ha% na%ural lan*ua*e obviously has a(bi*ui%ies an& 'eculiari%ies, an& we have %o in%er're% our way %hrou*h %hese# 7a%ural lan*ua*e also has +unc%ions no% connec%e& wi%h co((unica%in* in+or(a%ion H bu% ob>ec%ual se(an%ics *enerally &oes no% &eal wi%h %hese# 1% is in%en&e& %o &eal only wi%h %he 'ri(ary co((unica%ive +unc%ions o+ lan*ua*e# The 'rinci'le o+ Tich?s a''roach is %ha% we shoul& be able %o 'rovi&e accurate and objecti%e logical analyses of factual language. To &o %his, we will o+%en have %o &isa(bi*ua%e na%ural lan*ua*e e5'ressions, an& e5'lica%e %heir in%en&e& con%en% H which is why analysis is necessary in %he +irs% 'lace# To re'resen% an e5'lici% lo*ical analysis, he in%ro&uces %he @i&eali!e&? lo*ical lan*ua*e o+ T10# This is a %ool +or e5'lici%ly re'resen%in* %he in%en&e& (eanin*s o+ na%ural lan*ua*e e5'ressions# 7ow %he sy(bolic lan*ua*e o+ T10 i%sel+ has a s%ron* 'ro'er%y o+ @co('osi%ionali%y? H i#e# i% re'resen%s (eanin*s in a way %ha% a&heres %o %he Princi'le o+ o('osi%ionali%y# To a''ly i% accura%ely %o real lan*ua*e, we have %o analyse meanings accurately 0 an& we o+%en have %o &isa(bi*ua%e be%ween 'ossible rea&in*s o+ na%ural lan*ua*e e5'ressions. This is by no (eans always %rivial - as %he %rea%(en% o+ si('le @'uns? usually is H bu% %his &oes no% in i%sel+ re'resen% a challen*e %o co('osi%ionali%y# The serious challen*e %o @co('osi%ionali%y? is +oun& in %he i&ea %ha% (eanin*s are only &e%er(ine&, in *eneral, by as'ec%s o+ %he conte*t in which s%a%e(en%s are (a&e, an& %ha% %his con%e5%-&e'en&ence shoul& i%sel+ be re+lec%e& in %he @lo*ical lan*ua*e? use& +or analy!in* (eanin*# 1n +ac%, %his is %he +un&a(en%al 'oin% on which Tich cri%ici!es bo%h Fre*e?s %heory, an& recen% in%ensional se(an%ics# :s well as %he de dicto 0 de re 'roble(, we will also see a (os% i('or%an% e5a('le o+ %his in %he %rea%(en% o+ s%a%e(en%s abou% propositional beliefs. This 'roble( is one reason Tich +oun& i% necessary %o in%ro&uce %he conce'% o+ constructions, in a&&i%ion %o intensions. This &i++icul%y is now well-reco*ni!e& in se(an%ics H bu% Tich was ar*uably %he +irs% %o reco*ni!e %he &e'%h o+ %he 'roble( +or in%ensional %heories# :n& while so(e %heoris%s have chosen %o aban&on co('osi%ionali%y, Tich %hin"s %his is a 're(a%ure ca'i%ula%ion#

    1-

    Focusin* on co('osi%ionali%y also &raws our a%%en%ion %o so(e%hin* %ha% Tich, a*ain +ollowin* Fre*e, %oo" as o+ 'ro+oun& i('or%ance# The si('le +ac% %ha% si('le %er(s are combined ith each other %o *enera%e (eanin*+ul co('le5 %er(s shows - in an ob>ec%ual %heory - %ha% the objects that pro%ide the meanings of simple terms can be combined ith each other, to generate other objects, hich pro%ide the meaning of the comple* e*pression. For ins%ance, @The (oon is yellow? co(bines %he (eanin*s o+ @%he (oon? an& @is yellow?, %o (a"e a co('le5 'ro'osi%ion# $ow &oes %his ha''enK For i% %o ha''en a% all, %he ob>ec%s %ha% 'rovi&e (eanin*s o+ %er(s (us% be .ui%e s'ecialG %hey (us% be able %o combine ith other objects# Bu% wha% "in&s o+ ob>ec%s co(bine wi%h each o%herK The answer 'rovi&e& by Fre*e is %ha% functions co(bine wi%h arguments %o 'ro&uce %alues, or results. This is %he essen%ial na%ure o+ +unc%ionsG %hey @%a"e? ob>ec%s o+ one "in&, an& @*ive? ob>ec%s o+ ano%her "in&# Je *enerally re'resen% %he co(bina%ion o+ a +unc%ion wi%h so(e ar*u(en%s by wri%in* %he %er(s +or %he +unc%ions an& ar*u(en%s ne5% %o each o%herG e#*# @1O<?# The syn%ac%ic >u5%a'osi%ion o+ %er(s re+lec%s so(e%hin* i('or%an%G functional application. 7ow %he 'rinci'le o+ o('osi%ionali%y is rou%inely &e+ine& in %er(s li"eG B%he (eanin* o+ a co('le5 e5'ression is a +unc%ion o+ %he (eanin*s o+ %he co('onen% %er(s an& %heir syntactic co(bina%ion#C Their @syn%ac%ic co(bina%ion? (eans %heir or&er o+ >u5%a'osi%ion in a sen%ence or 'hrase# Bu% Tich woul& no% acce'% %hisG in his view, %he syntactic combination also corres'on&s %o so(e%hin* objectual 0 na(ely, +unc%ional a''lica%ion# $is %heory o+ cons%ruc%ions (i*h% very well be %a"en as an ob>ec%ual %heory o+ the meanings o+ syn%ac%ic co(bina%ions# 7ow %his is so(e%hin* %ha% is rarely e5'lica%e& or even no%ice& H i% is li"e an invisible +ra(ewor" o+ lan*ua*e H bu% a li%%le re+lec%ion shows %ha% 'lacin* %wo %er(s a&>acen% %o each o%her in a sen%ence also has a (eanin*# 4#*# 'lacin* @Fre&? a&>acen% %o @is aslee'? means that e combine their meanings in a definite ay. 9r 'lacin* BOC in be%ween B1C an& B<C (eans we co(bine %heir (eanin*s in a &e+ini%e way# 1% is in%ui%ively a +unc%ional a''lica%ionG @POPC is a +unc%ionD we can +ill in %he *a's wi%h nu(bers, an& calcula%e a resul%# Tich usually e5'laine& constructions by a''ealin* %o %he i&ea %ha% when un&ers%an& co('le5 e5'ressions, we have @calcula%e? wha% %hey (ean so(ehow +ro( %heir si('le cons%i%uen%sD we *o %hrou*h so(e "in& o+ @'roce&ure?, where we 'u% co('onen% (eanin*s in one en&, an& *e% a newly cons%ruc%e& resul% ou% %he o%her en&# :n& he showe& %he value o+ %his e5%ension %o or&inary in%ensional se(an%ics by i%s success in solvin* cer%ain s%ubborn se(an%ic 'roble(s, +or ins%ance abou% in&ivi&ua%in* our belie+s abou% 'ro'osi%ions# Je will *o on %his shor%lyD bu% 1 %hin" i% is also use+ul %o see %his %heory as a na%ural &evelo'(en% in e5'lica%in* %he cen%ral no%ion o+ co('osi%ionali%y, which 'lays such an overri&in* role in his %heory# 6een in %his way, Tich?s cons%ruc%ions can be %a"en an e5'lici% %heory o+ the meanings of the 'inds of combinations of meanings re.uire& in a +ully ob>ec%ual %heory# $e 'ro'ose& a +or(al %heory, which i&en%i+ies a +ew basic or 'ri(i%ive %y'es o+ cons%ruc%ions, an& i%era%ive rules +or co(binin* %he( %o *ive an o'en-en&e& hierarchy o+ cons%ruc%ions# The (os% in%ui%ive e5a('les o+ 'ri(i%ive cons%ruc%ions corres'on& %o wha% we nor(ally call functional application an& functional abstraction, which he *ives %he %echnical na(es composition an& closure# 9%her 'ri(i%ive cons%ruc%ions, which are no% so in%ui%ively obvious are calle& tri%iali4ation, %ariables, an& e*ecution. $is 'recise +or(ula%ion o+ %his %heory see(s %o (e an

    11

    in&is'u%able s%ro"e o+ *enius# Bu% +irs%, le% us s%ar% wi%h a .uic" loo" a% his %heory o+ intensions.

    %&tensions and Intensions.


    The no%ion o+ intensionality, or intensional meaning, is con%ras%e& wi%h e*tensionality, an& was reco*ni!e& by earlier wri%ers# :n i('or%an% %rea%(en% is *iven in arna'?s (1942) sys%e( in Meaning and 5ecessity, an& %he conce'% was wi&ely &iscusse& in %he 196-?s# Tich?s +irs% achieve(en%, in crea%in* an in%ensional lo*ic, lay in reanaly!in* %his no%ion, an& +or(ali!in* i% e++ec%ively# $e 'ro'oses a sys%e( in which we use a s(all nu(ber o+ e5'lici% ca%e*ories o+ +un&a(en%al ob>ec%s, essen%iallyG orlds, times, indi%iduals, an& truth %alues, %o cons%ruc% intensions. The (os% revolu%ionary +ea%ure o+ %his lo*ic is %ha% i% in%ro&uces e5'lici% .uan%i+ica%ion over orlds# The i&ea is (os% obvious when we consi&er propositions. Je re*ar& +ac%ual 'ro'osi%ions as bein* true or false (or so(e%i(es as havin* no %ru%h values, which we can i*nore +or %he (o(en%)# For ins%ance, %he 'ro'osi%ion %ha%G the author of 6a%erly is .cott is true# Bu% %he %ru%h values o+ %y'ical 'ro'osi%ions can change ith time, an& %hey are also *enerally only contingent. They are only %he %alues %ha% 'ro'osi%ions %a"e, a% cer%ain %i(es, an& in cer%ain s%a%es o+ a++airs# 1+ %he worl& were &i++eren%, so(e 'ro'osi%ions woul& have &i++eren% values %o %hose %hey ac%ually have# learly, we un&ers%an& %he meanings of propositions in *eneral be+ore we "now whe%her %hey are %rue or +alse# Je have %o inves%i*a%e whe%her a *iven 'ro'osi%ion is %rue or +alse by learnin* abou% %he worl&# 7ow i+ 'ro'osi%ions %a"e true an& false as %heir values, hat are propositions themsel%es/ This is a charac%eris%ic "in& o+ .ues%ion %ha% Tich as"sG he &e(an&s 'recise &e+ini%ions o+ %hin*s li"e 'ro'osi%ions, (eanin*s, worl&s, an& so on# Tich?s +irs% a''roach was %o i&en%i+y 'ro'osi%ions as (a''in*s or +unc%ions, which %a"e us from orlds an& times %o truth %alues. To +in& %he %alue o+ a 'ro'osi%ion, we a''ly i% +irs% %o a orld, an& %hen %o a time in %he worl&# 6orlds are conceive& in %he +irs% ins%ance as (a5i(al classes o+ +ac%s H inclu&in* all his%orical 'as%, 'resen%, an& +u%ure +ac%s abou% every%hin* %ha% ever ha''ens# 9+ course we &o no% 'no wha% worl& we inhabi% in %his sense H we can never "now all %he +ac%s abou% %he worl&# Bu% we can +in& ou% abou% so(e o+ %he +ac%s %ha% hol& in our actual orld. This is *enerally wha% we (us% &o %o +in& ou% whe%her a *iven 'ro'osi%ion is %rue or +alse# Je can evalua%e 'ro'osi%ions a% &i++eren% %i(es, because we can ob%ain "nowle&*e abou% %he ac%ual worl&# Thus, we co(e u' wi%h a "in& o+ (a%he(a%ical 'ic%ure o+ propositions. 1+ we le% # be a 'ro'osi%ion, %hen we i&en%i+y i% as a s'eci+ic (a''in*, +ro( worl&s an& %i(es %o %ru%h values# ;a%he(a%icians in&ica%e %he s%ruc%ure o+ such (a''in*s sche(a%ically, li"eG #: 7,1 9r %o be (ore 'recise, Tich se'ara%es %his (a''in* in%o %wo s%e'sG #: 7 1 The sy(bols re+er %o basic ca%e*ories o+ ob>ec%sG is %he class o+ possible orlds. is %he class o+ times.

    1<

    is %he class o+ truth %alues, i#e# QTrue, (alseR. Je evalua%e an in%ensional 'ro'osi%ion, #, in %wo s%e'sG we +irs% o+ all a''ly i% %o a orld, , (+ro( %he class ) an& %his *ives us a mapping from times to truth3%aluesD we %hen a''ly %his %o a %i(e, t (+ro( %he class ) an& %his *ives us a truth3%alue. Je can say %ha% %he ac%ual %ru%h-value o+ a 'ro'osi%ion # a% %he 'resen% %i(e is %he e*tension of #, while # i%sel+ is %he *eneral (a''in* (an intension). This is calle& an intensional theory of propositions, an& is %he +irs% (a>or s%e' in &e+inin* Tich?s sys%e(# There is a si(ilar &uali%y be%ween intension an& e*tension +or al(os% every se(an%ic ca%e*ory# 4#*# a set or class is &e+ine& by i%s s'eci+ic (e(bers, an& classes are %he e*tensions (or values) o+ properties. : class is &e+ine& by i%s (e(bers, whereas a 'ro'er%y (ay 'ic" ou% one se% o+ %hin*s in one 'ossible worl&, a% one %i(e, an& ano%her se% in a &i++eren% 'ossible worl&, or a% a &i++eren% %i(e# Thus a 'ro'er%y 8 is an intension %ha% loo"s li"eG
    8: 79}) Jhere we sy(boli!eG

    is %he class o+ indi%iduals (or ob>ec%s)

    7o%ice %ha% %he 'ro'er%y (a's %o a sub3class of indi%iduals, no% >us% a sin*le in&ivi&ual# This (ay be an e('%y class, as always %he case +or an i('ossible 'ro'er%y, e#*# %he 'ro'er%y o+ being round and s:uare. 7o%e %ha% Tich also %rea%s classes %he(selves as (a''in*s +ro( members o+ %he class %o truth3%aluesD hence %he sub-class in&ica%e& above byG 9} is &e+ine& as a (a''in* o+ %he +or(G (), where an in&ivi&ual i (a's %o true >us% in case i is in %he sub-class# : %ric"ier case involves %he &is%inc%ion be%ween names, li"e @6co%%?, an& definite descriptions, li"e @The au%hor o+ Javerly?. 1n %he si('les% case, we can %a"e a name %o re+er &irec%ly %o an indi%idual. Tha% is, @6co%%? is assu(e& %o na(e %he sa(e in&ivi&ual in every 'ossible worl&, an& a% every %i(e (si(ilar %o wha% Fri'"e calls a rigid designator)# : &e+ini%e &escri'%ion, on %he o%her han&, re+ers %o &i++eren% in&ivi&uals or ob>ec%s a% &i++eren% %i(es or in &i++eren% 'ossible worl&s# Tich calls %his "in& o+ se(an%ic ca%e*ory an office (+ro( %he no%ion o+ a @'oli%ical o++ice?, li"e @%he o++ice o+ Presi&en%?)# The si('les% "in& o+ office is a (a''in* +ro( worl&s an& %i(es %o in&ivi&uals# 1% is &i++eren% %o a 'ro'er%y, because %he (a''in* is %o a sin*le in&ivi&ual, no% %o a class H i#e# %he e5%ension o+ an o++ice is an in&ivi&ual# This (a''in* loo"s li"eG A: 7) Bu% %here is also a .ues%ion abou% whe%her 'ro'er na(es shoul& be %a"en as @hi&&en &escri'%ions? H ra%her %han bein* &irec%ly in%er're%e& as 'ar%icular worl&-in&e'en&en% in&ivi&uals# 1+ so, we (ay %a"e %he( as o++ices as well (as wi%h the Moon below)# 1+ we %oo" all 'ro'er na(es as o++ices, we (i*h% be le+% only wi%h variables +or in&ivi&ualsG bu% we s%ill nee& in&ivi&uals in Tich?s sys%e( %o 'rovi&e re+erences, an& %o in%er're% variables over in&ivi&uals# Bu% 1 will no% *o in%o %his %ric"y .ues%ion here# A above is an e5a('le o+ an indi%idual office. Bu% we (ay also s'eci+y o++ices li"e B6co%%?s +avori%e 'ro'osi%ionC, +or e5a('le, where %he o++ice is +ille& (i+ a% all) by

    13

    a 'ro'osi%ion H which is alrea&y a co('lica%e& +unc%ion# Thus, we can buil& u' hi*her-or&er ob>ec%s, wi%h +unc%ions e(be&&e& in o%her +unc%ions# Because o+ %he nee& %o &o %his, %he basic %heory o+ classes or +unc%ions %ha% Tich e('loys is a hierarchical type theory, li"e 3ussell an& Jhi%ehea& &evelo'e& in Mathematica #rincipia. The use o+ %his %heory, calle& %he ramified theory of types, allows us %o cons%ruc% hi*her-or&er classes an& +unc%ions in a consis%en% way, an& %o .uan%i+y over an& re+er %o hi*her-or&er ob>ec%s# This is %he (os% un+a(iliar 'ar% o+ %he %heory +ro( %he 'oin% o+ view o+ (o&ern @(a%he(a%ical lo*ic?, which rarely *oes beyon& %he s%u&y o+ +irs%-or&er lo*ic# Firs%-or&er lo*ic is 're+erre& in (a%he(a%ics, because i% is &e&uc%ively co('le%e, while secon& an& hi*her-or&er lo*ics are no% &e&uc%ively co('le%e# $owever, hi*her-or&er lo*ics have +ar (ore e5'ressive 'ower (+or ins%ance, Ao&el?s +a(ous %heore( %ha% %here is no co('le%e a5io(a%isa%ion o+ ari%h(e%ic only a''lies %o first order a*iomatisations: in secon& or&er lo*ic, we can in&ee& *ive a co('le%e a5io(a%isa%ion o+ ari%h(e%ic, bu% now %he 'roo+ %heory is inco('le%e)# This increase& 'ower is necessary +or any %heory li"e Tich?s# The &e&uc%ive inco('le%eness (ay see( re*re%%able %o (a%he(a%icians, who 're+er %o be able %o 'rove all %he lo*ical conse.uences o+ %heir %heories &e&uc%ively (an& conse.uen%ly li(i% %he ran*e o+ %heories %hey con%e('la%e %o ensure %his)D bu% i% is lo*ically unavoi&able in %he analysis o+ real lan*ua*es, which allows re+erence %o hi*her-or&er en%i%ies, such as 'ro'er%ies-o+-'ro'er%ies, 'ro'er%ies-o+-'ro'osi%ions, an& so +or%h# :no%her e5a('le involves %he propositional connecti%es, such as And, ;r, an& 5ot. 4#*# *iven %wo 'ro'osi%ions, call %he( # an& <, we can +or( %he new 'ro'osi%ionG # and <, (eanin* %ha% both # and < are true. :n e5%ensional %rea%(en% le%s us &e+ine %he o'era%or And as a (a''in* +ro( a 'air o+ %ru%h-values %o a new %ru%hvalue# This has %he +unc%ional +or(G And: 7,1. 1% is worl&-in&e'en&en%, or analy%ic H i% re'resen%s %he sa(e (a''in* in every worl&# 1n in%ensional lo*ic, %he 'ro'osi%ions # an& < %ha% we connec% are no% >us% %ru%hs values, bu% in%ensions, an& %he resul% is no% >us% a %ru%h-value, bu% ano%her in%ension# $owever %he %er( @ And! is s%ill analyse& in Tich?s %heory as >us% a si('le %ru%h-+unc%ion, which o'era%es on %he %ru%hvalues, because we can &e+ine %he truth conditions si('ly byG # and < is %rue a% a worl& an& %i(e t >us% in case # is true at and t, and < is true at and t. :n& si(ilarly wi%h o%her %ru%h-connec%ives, li"e not an& or. The %rea%(en% o+ %hese @lo*ical %er(s? also illus%ra%es %he &i++erence be%ween @+or(alis%? conce'%ions o+ lo*ic an& ob>ec%ual se(an%ics# 1n %he +or(alis% view, which is very co((on in (o&ern %e5%s, lo*ic is sai& %o %rea% %he +or(al or syn%ac%ic rules +or a s'ecial ca%e*ory o+ @lo*ical sy(bols?, such as @an&?, @or?, @no%?, @all? an& @so(e?# These 'urely syntactic rules are o+%en clai(e& %o @&e+ine %he (eanin*s? o+ %hese %er(sD an& %his is re*ar&e& as a co('le%ely &i++eren% "in& o+ @(eanin*? %o @e('irical (eanin*s?, o+ @e('irical %er(s?# Bu% in ob>ec%ual se(an%ics, %he (eanin* o+ lo*ical %er(s is %rea%e& con%inuously wi%h %he (eanin*s o+ e('irical %er(s H %hey are all *iven ob>ec%ual (eanin*s# The &i++erence is no% %ha% %ha% %here are @%wo "in&s o+ (eanin*s?, lo*ical an& e('irical, bu% %ha% %he lo*ical %er(s have orld3independent (eanin*sG %hey re+er %o %he sa(e +unc%ions in every 'ossible si%ua%ion, which (a"es i% 'ossible %o &e+ine %he( e5haus%ively#

    14

    Tich's $!bolis! for Transparent Intensional Logic.


    Tich?s %er( @transparent in%ensional lo*ic? re+lec%s %he use o+ a sy(bolis( %o @%rans'aren%ly? re+lec% %he lo*ical s%ruc%ures o+ e5'ressions# Two (ain +ea%ures are %he &e+ini%ion o+ a sys%e( o+ logical types, an& %he use o+ orld3time indices# For e5a('le, he uses %he %y'e sy(bolis( (1988, '#<-<)G ;ffice: A P U Type: =escription: %he o++ice o+ %he au%hor o+ 6a%erly %he 'ro'osi%ion %ha% %he au%hor o+ 6a%erly is a 'oe%# %he 'ro'er%y o+ bein* a 'oe%#

    ()

    The %y'e o+ e*tension o+ %he ob>ec% is in&ica%e& by %he (ain sy(bols on %he le+%D %he subscri'%e& worl&-%i(e in&ices in&ica%e %he %y'e o+ (a''in*# 7o%e %ha% a class in %his sys%e( corres'on&s %o a %y'e o+ +unc%ionG (), which (a's in&ivi&uals +ro( %o %ru%hvalues +ro( - an in&ivi&ual is (a''e& %o True i+ i% belon*s %o %he class# ;ore co('le5 ob>ec%s %hen have e(be&&e& %y'esG e#*# %he %ric"y rela%ion o+ 'ro'osi%ional belie+G @### believes ###? is ini%ially analyse& ('# <-<) wi%h %he %y'eG ;ffice: B Type: () =escription: %he rela%ion be%ween in&ivi&uals an& 'ro'osi%ions %hey believe#

    is %he %y'e o+ a 'ro'osi%ionD () re'resen%s a rela%ion be%ween in&ivi&uals an& 'ro'osi%ions (i#e# %he e5%ension o+ @belie+s? a% a 'ar%icular worl&-%i(e)D an& () re'resen%s %he intension o+ %his rela%ion# This (eans, +or ins%ance, %ha% %he %er( @A &e+ine& above na(es a +unc%ionG i% can %a"e a orld, , an& a time, t, as ar*u(en%s, %o *ive an in&ivi&ual, i H i#e# %he au%hor o+ Javerley in worl& a% %i(e t. (This (a''in* has %wo &is%inc% s%e'sG +irs% A is a''lie& %o %he worl& , %o *enera%e a (a''in* +ro( %i(es %o in&ivi&ualsD %hen %his is a''lie& %o t %o *enera%e an in&ivi&ual#) Tich wri%es +unc%ional a''lica%ions wi%h subscri'%e& in&ices, li"eG A t# 7o%e %ha% %he Aree" le%%ers an& are use& +or %he classes of orlds and times, res'ec%ivelyD %he :rabic an& t are variables over particular orlds and times. 1n e5'lica%in* %he lo*ical +or(s o+ sen%ences or 'hrases, Tich %hen shows worl&-%i(e &e'en&ences e5'lici%ly, by usin* abs%rac%ions on worl&-%i(e in&ices %o cons%ruc% %hese +unc%ions, an& *ive a vivi& @&e'ic%ion? o+ %he s%ruc%ures o+ %he lo*ical (a''in*s involve&# 4#*# he e5'lica%es %he sen%enceG BThe au%hor o+ 6a%erley is a 'oe%C asG t#U tA t
    The la(b&a is %he abs%rac%ion o'era%orG i% is %he inverse o+ +unc%ional a''lica%ionD so whereasG A t a''lies %he worl&-%i(e +unc%ion A %o %he values an& t %o *enera%e a value (an in&ivi&ual in %his case), t#A t reverses %he 'rocess, an& re%urns us %o %he ori*inal +unc%ion, A# Je coul& >us% wri%eG UAS bu% %he e5'ansion %oG t#U tA t shows %he +unc%ional cons%ruc%ion, in a %rans'aren% an& lo*ical way, an& %his sy(bolic sys%e( is one o+ %he "eys %o %he success o+ Transparent Intensional Logic.

    1,

    This sy(bolic sys%e( is .ui%e &i++eren% %o ;on%a*ue?s sys%e(, which &oes no% show worl& an& %i(e .uan%i+ica%ions e5'lici%ly, an& *ives a (uch (ore @o'a.ue? sy(bolis(# The a''lica%ion o+ Tich?s %heory is illus%ra%e& ne5% wi%h an i('or%an% e5a('le#

    The De Dicto - De Re (istinction.


    :n i('or%an% a''lica%ion o+ T10 is %o solve an ol& se(an%ic 'roble( %ha% was +irs% inves%i*a%e& by (e&ieval 'hiloso'hers, who &e+ine& a &is%inc%ion be%ween de dicto an& de re occurrences o+ cer%ain %er(s# For e5a('le, su''ose %ha% 4&war& has ac%ually (ur&ere& =ohn, an& consi&erG (1) (<) The &e%ec%ive is arres%in* %he (ur&erer o+ =ohn The &e%ec%ive is loo"in* +or %he (ur&erer o+ =ohn Lde reM Lde dictoM

    1n %he +irs% sen%ence, i% is na%ural %o say %ha% 4&war& (%he 'erson who ac%ually (ur&ere& =ohn) is bein* s'o"en abou% H even %hou*h his 'ro'er-na(e, @4&war&?, has no% been use&# For *iven %ha% %he &e%ec%ive is arres%in* %he (ur&erer o+ =ohn, an& 4&war& is %he (ur&erer o+ =ohn, i% +ollows %ha% the detecti%e is arresting 2d ard. 6o (1) is about 2d ard. 7o%e %ha% %his i('lies %ha% we in%er're% %he rela%ionG $is arresting$ as a rela%ion be%ween indi%iduals# $ere we say %ha% %he %er( @%he (ur&erer o+ =ohn? is use& wi%h a de re supposition, because i% (a"es re+erence %o %he indi%idual ho satisfies the office, i#e# 4&war&# Bu% %he secon& sen%ence is 'o%en%ially a(bi*uous# There are %wo ways %o un&ers%an& i%# A. de dicto case. The &e%ec%ive does not 'no ho the murderer of >ohn is, an& is %ryin* %o +in& ou% who %he (ur&erer is# ?. de re case. The &e%ec%ive "nows who %he (ur&erer is, an& is loo"in* +or %ha% 'erson H i#e# 4&war&# 1n case (B), %he si%ua%ion is si(ilar %o (1)G 4&war& is bein* s'o"en o+# 1n %his case, we clearly in%er're% %he rela%ionG $is loo'ing for$ as a rela%ion be%ween indi%iduals# Bu% in case (:), 4&war& hi(sel+ is no% bein* s'o"en o+ a% all# For ins%ance, we (ay su''ose %he &e%ec%ive "nows 4&war&, an& "nows where he lives, bu% &oes no% "now %ha% 4&war& is %he (ur&erer# 1+ he were loo"in* +or 4&war&, he woul& *o %o 4&war&?s houseD bu% he &oes no% *o %o 4&war&?s house, an& we (us% conclu&e %ha% the detecti%e is not loo'ing for 2d ard H even %hou*h %he &e%ec%ive is loo'ing for the murderer of >ohn# Thus, in case (B), i% see(s %he %er( @%he (ur&erer o+ =ohn? is bein* use& %o re+er %o 4&war&, while in case (:), i% is no% use& %o re+er %o 4&war&# Bu% %his see(s %o con%ra&ic% %he Princi'le o+ o('osi%ionali%yG %he %er( @%he (ur&erer o+ =ohn? see(s %o be in%er're%e& wi%h %wo .ui%e &i++eren% (eanin*s, an& %he a(bi*ui%y nee&s %o be &eci&e& +ro( %he con%e5%, be+ore %he (eanin* can be &eci&e&# Bu% Tich?s %heory allows a way o+ solvin* %his "in& o+ 'roble(, wi%hou% con%ra&ic%in* o('osi%ionali%y, an& wi%hou% (a"in* %he %er( Bthe murderer of >ohn a(bi*uous a% all# 1n his view, %he a(bi*ui%y is real, bu% i% is +oun& in %he %er( @is loo'ing for# 1n case (B), we saw %ha%G $is loo'ing for$ is a rela%ion be%ween %wo in&ivi&uals (%he &e%ec%ive an& 4&war&)D in case (:), loo'ing for (us% be in%er're%e& as a rela%ion which hol&s be%ween an in&ivi&ual (%he &e%ec%ive) an& an office (in %his case,

    16

    the office of being the murderer of >ohn )# 1% is a &i++eren% rela%ion al%o*e%her +ro( %ha% assu(e& in case (:)# 1% (ay +irs% a''ear a li%%le o&& %o say %ha% a 'erson loo's for an office, ra%her %han +or a 'hysical ob>ec%# Bu% i% (a"es sense when we consi&er %ha% @loo"in* +or %he (ur&erer o+ =ohn? in case (:) really involves so(e%hin* li"e see'ing an item of 'no ledge about the office, ra%her %han &irec%ly see"in* %o @loca%e? %he abs%rac% ob>ec%# 1% &oes no% involve @loca%in* %he o++ice in s'ace?, which is i('ossible, because o++ices &o no% have loca%ions in s'ace# 3a%her, we woul& say %ha% %he &e%ec%ive has succee&e& in his search +or %he (ur&erer o+ =ohn when he has correc%ly i&en%i+ie& which in&ivi&ual sa%is+ies %he o++ice# :n& %his is a search %o i&en%i+y an @abs%rac%? ob>ec%, no% a 'hysical ob>ec%# 0e% us sy(boli!e %he lo*ical s%ruc%ures o+ %hese sen%ences, usin* D +or the detecti%e (which we will %a"e %o be an in&ivi&ual), E +or 4&war& (an in&ivi&ual), M +or the murderer of >ohn (an o++ice o+ in&ivi&uals), A +or is arresting (a rela%ion be%ween in&ivi&uals an& in&ivi&uals), an& %wo &i++eren% sy(bols +or %he %wo &i++eren% (eanin*s o+G is loo'ing for, LA +or %he +irs% (eanin* (a rela%ion be%ween in&ivi&uals an& o++ices), LB +or %he +irs% (eanin* (a rela%ion be%ween in&ivi&uals an& in&ivi&uals)# Then we analyseG (1T) (<T#:) (<T#B) t#A tDM t t#LA tDM t#LB tDM t

    Tichy uses a Polish no%a%ion, wi%hou% brac"e%s# 1n a brac"e%e& no%a%ion, we woul& wri%eG t#A t(D,M t), %o in&ica%e %ha% D an& M t are %he ar*u(en%s o+ %he rela%ion A. This can see( a li%%le con+usin* i+ you are use& %o brac"e%e& no%a%ion# 7ow we have %a"en a sin*le analysis o+ %he %er( M H i% is %he o++ice o+ %he (ur&erer o+ =ohn# Bu% %here is a clear &i++erence in %he lo*ical s%ruc%ures o+ (<?#:) an& (<?#B)# 7ow nei%her 'ro'osi%ion (en%ions 4&war& &irec%ly by na(eD bu% %here is a clear sense in which (1?) an& (<?#B) are about 2d ard 7gi%en that 2d ard is the murderer1, whereas (<?#:) is not about 2d ard at all 7 hether or not he is the murderer1. To see %his, su''ose %ha% we e%aluate %hese in%ensional 'ro'osi%ions an& ob>ec%s a% a s'eci+ic worl& an& %i(e, , t, an& we *e% %he %alues: (1U) (<U#:) (<U#B) The value o+G The value o+G The value o+G A tDM t LA tDM LB tDM t is True is True is True a% %i(e t, so %ha%G

    :n& we a&& %ha% 2d ard is the murderer of >ohn in worl& (3U) The value o+G M
    t

    is E

    7ow i% +ollows +ro( (1U) an& (3U) %ha%G (1UU) The value o+G A tDE is True

    12

    1#e# the detecti%e is arresting 2d ard (in worl& a% %i(e t)# This 'rocess o+ evalua%in* %he references o+ %he %er(s is calle& semantic descent: we *o +ro( %he office, M, %o i%s %alue or reference in a worl& a% a %i(e, M t # 1n e5ac%ly %he sa(e way, i% +ollows +ro( (<U#B) an& (3U) %ha%G (<#BUU) The value o+G LB tDE is True

    Bu% i% &oes not +ollow +ro( (<U#:) an& (3U) %ha%G (<#:UU) The value o+G LA tDE is True

    1n +ac%, (<#:UU) is ba&ly +or(e& (a null cons%ruc%ion), because we have s'eci+ie& LA as a rela%ion be%ween in&ivi&uals an& offices, bu% E is an in&ivi&ual no% an o++ice# $owever, %he (eanin*+ul s%a%e(en%, (<#BUU), also &oes not +ollow +ro( (<U#:) an& (3U)# Thus Tich?s solu%ion &oes no% &e'en& on any a(bi*ui%y in %he (eanin* o+ %he 'hrase @%he (ur&erer o+ =ohn?# 1% &e'en&s ins%ea& on an a(bi*ui%y in %he 'hraseG Bis loo"in* +orC# This a(bi*ui%y is real H i% is an a(bi*ui%y o+ or&inary 4n*lish# To analyse %he s%a%e(en%s accura%ely we have %o &isa(bi*ua%e %he in%en&e& (eanin*# 1n %he accura%e lo*ical lan*ua*e o+ T10, %his a(bi*ui%y eva'ora%es H T10 has 'er+ec% co('osi%ionali%y# 7a%urally, T10 is a (ore e5'lici% lo*ical lan*ua*e %han or&inary 4n*lish H since i+ 4n*lish was 'er+ec%ly e5'lici% %here woul& be no nee& +or a se'ara%e lo*ical lan*ua*e %o e5'lica%e (eanin*s# The failure o+ co('osi%ionali%y occurs in o%her lo*ical %heories, li"e Fre*e?s, +or e5a('le, where %he %er( @%he (ur&erer o+ =ohn? is %a"en %o have %wo &i++eren% (eanin*s in %wo &i++eren% con%e5%s H ac%in* as a na(e o+ an in&ivi&ual in case (B), an& as %he na(e o+ a Fre*ean @sense? in case (:)# Tichy?s analysis see(s %o show %ha% %his is %he wron* way %o analyse %he 'roble(#

    Inade)uac$ of Intensions to erve as Objects of Propositional *elief.


    1n%ensional lo*ic is e5%re(ely use+ul an& enli*h%enin* +or se(an%ic analysisG bu% Tich see(e& %o reco*ni!e, even as he conceive& i%, %ha% i% has a serious li(i%a%ion# The 'roble( is %ha% intensions alone are no% +ully ca'able o+ re'resen%in* propositional meaning, seen %hrou*h %he lo*ic o+ propositional beliefs. : si('le ar*u(en% shows %his# The intensions o+ any %wo %rue (a%he(a%ical %heore(s are %he sa(e, because a %rue (a%he(a%ical %heore( is true in e%ery possible orld, at e%ery time. Ta"e +or ins%anceG ABC,D, an&G AE*AE , CFE# These are bo%h %rue in every worl& a% every %i(e, an& hence %heir intension is si('ly %he (a''in* +ro( every worl& an& %i(e %o %he value true. Bu% (any 'eo'le believe %ha%G ABC,D is a %rue 'ro'osi%ion, wi%hou% believin* %ha%G AE*AE,CFE is %rue# $ence, %he intensions canno% co('le%ely re'resen% %he +ull @'ro'osi%ional (eanin*?, in %he in%ui%ive sense o+ %ha% %er(, where we say %ha% we @believe one 'ro'osi%ion bu% no% %he o%her?# There are +ar (ore (a%he(a%ical %heore(s %han available in%ensions# The (os% 'o'ular res'onse %o %his ini%ially is calle& @se(an%ic ascen%?, a&voca%e& by Euine# This says %ha% we in&ivi&ua%e (a%he(a%ical %heore(s in a (ore +ine-*raine&

    18

    way, on %he basis o+ %heir e5'ressions %hrou*h (a%he(a%ical sen%ences# 9bviously i% (ay be %rue %ha% BFre& "nows %ha% ABC,D, while i% is no% %rue %ha% BFre& "nows %ha% AE*AE,CFE#C 9n %he @se(an%ic ascen%? view, we &is%in*uish %he %wo cases by observin* %ha% Fre& "nows %ha% %he sentenceG B1O<V3C is %rue, bu% he &oes no% "now %ha% %he sentence B16516V<,6C is %rue# 9n Euine?s view, we are su''ose& %o re&uce all %al" abou% our belie+s in 'ro'osi%ions %o %al" abou% belie+s in %he sen%ences or s%a%e(en%s (lin*uis%ic i%e(s) %ha% we use %o e5'ress %he(# Bu% Tich ar*ues %ha% %his 'ro'osal +ails +or ano%her reason# 1+ Fre& "nows %ha% ABC,D, %hen surely Fre& "nows %ha% one plus t o e:uals three. These are >us% %wo &i++eren% ways o+ e5'ressin* %he sa(e i%e( o+ (a%he(a%ical "nowle&*e, one in (a%he(a%ical sy(bols, %he o%her in 4n*lish# We%, su''ose Fre& is !ech, an& &oes no% "now 4n*lish# $e &oes no% reco*ni!e %he (eanin* o+ %he 4n*lish sen%enceG Bone plus t o e:uals three# 6o on %he se(an%ic ascen% view, we woul& have %o say %ha% he &oes no% "now %ha% one plus t o e:uals three, while he &oes "now %ha% ABC,D. We% %hese %wo s%a%e(en%s see( %o re'resen% e5ac%ly %he sa(e i%e( o+ (a%he(a%ical "nowle&*e# The 'roble( arises +or e('irical belie+s as wellD %he (a%he(a%ical e5a('le is >us% a 'ar%icularly si('le one# The 'roble( arises as lon* as we hol& %ha% e can e*press the same item of propositional 'no ledge in different languages, i#e# usin* &i++eren% e5'ressions# 1+ 'ro'osi%ional "nowle&*e was &i++eren%ia%e& no% >us% by i%s @ob>ec%ive con%en%?, bu% by %he e*pressions use& %o s%a%e i%, %his woul& no% be 'ossible# $ence, Tich conclu&es %ha%G
    BPro'osi%ions (cons%rue& as Lin%ensionsM) are %hus %oo coarse-*raine&, an& sen%ences %oo +ine*raine& %o serve as ob>ec%s o+ (a%he(a%ical belie+s# Je obviously nee& a ca%e*ory o+ ob>ec%s which +alls be%ween %hese %wo e5%re(es# The ca%e*ory o+ cons%ruc%ions is an obvious can&i&a%e#C (1988, '#<<<)#

    This (a%he(a%ical e5a('le is use& because i% is very si('le, bu% %he sa(e ar*u(en% a''lies %o e('irical lan*ua*e *enerally, an& Tich?s ai( is %o *ive a +ra(ewor" +or se(an%ics o+ +ac%ual na%ural lan*ua*e, no% >us% (a%he(a%ics# This 'oin% is a (ore *eneral ob>ec%ion %o wha% is "nown as %he Tars"ian view o+ (eanin*G %ha% the meaning of an e*pression is gi%en by its truth3conditions. This see(s a sensible i&ea %o be*in wi%hG %o e5'lain wha% an e5'ression (eans, we nee& %o e5'lain wha% woul& have %o be %he case +or i% %o be %rue# Bu% in i%s si('les% +or(, a% leas%, i% su++ers %he sa(e 'roble( as %a"in* intensions %o re'resen% (eanin*sG lo*ical %au%olo*ies an& (a%he(a%ical %heore(s are al ays true, so %heir %ru%h con&i%ions are i&en%icalG they are true. Bu% we &o no% e5'lain wha% %hey mean >us% by sayin* %ha% %hey are %rue# Je have %o e5'lain wha% %hey are about. 0e% us now consi&er Tich?s conce'% o+ cons%ruc%ions, which is use& %o solve %his 'roble(#

    #onstructions.
    1n in%ensional lo*ic, a (eanin*+ul s%a%e(en% &eno%es an intension a (a''in* +ro( worl&s an& %i(es %o %ru%h values# Bu% when we un&ers%an& a co('le5 e5'ression, we &o no% >us% >u(' au%o(a%ically %o %he correc% in%ensionG ra%her, we *o %hrou*h a 'roce&ure %o @calcula%e? i%, +ro( our "nowle&*e o+ %he (eanin*s o+ %he (ore basic 'ar%s o+ %he e5'ression# This is wha% %he Princi'le o+ o('osi%ionali%y %ells us# Tich i&en%i+ies (eanin* wi%h %he 'roce&ures +or @calcula%in*? (eanin*s, which he calls constructions#

    19

    The constructions involve %he ob>ec%s (en%ione& in %he co('le5 e5'ressions# 6o, +or e5a('le, we have %o calcula%e %ha%G AE*AE,CFE, by consi&erin* all %he ob>ec%s involve&G %he nu(bers AE an& <,6, an& (ul%i'lica%ion +unc%ion, an& e.uali%y# This is &i++eren% +ro( %he calcula%ion o+ ABC,D. 9n %he o%her han&, %he calcula%ion o+ ABC,D is %he sa(e %hin* as %he calcula%ion o+ one plus t o e:uals three 0 a% leas%, i% is %he sa(e as lon* as we i&en%i+y %he ob>ec%s na(e& by %he %er(s @1?, @<?, @3?, @O?, an& @V? as %he sa(e ob>ec%s as @one?, @%wo?, @%hree?, @'lus? an& @e.uals? res'ec%ively# $ence, i+ we %a"e %he @calcula%ions? we (a"e in%o accoun%, we (ay be able %o sa%is+y bo%h %hese re.uire(en%sG (a) &i++eren%ia%e %he (eanin*s o+ %rue 'ro'osi%ions %ha% none%heless involve &i++eren% ob>ec%s (ABC,D involves a &i++eren% calcula%ion %o AE*AE,CFE), an& also (b) i&en%i+y %he (eanin*s o+ so(e 'ro'osi%ions e5'resse& in %wo &i++eren% lan*ua*es, or usin* %wo &i++eren% e5'ressions (ABC,D involves e5ac%ly %he sa(e calcula%ion as one plus t o e:uals three)# Tich?s %heory o+ cons%ruc%ions is an e5'lici% %heory o+ wha% is involve& in the calculation of intensions# Je can easily see how we nee& %o &o %his in s'eci+ic cases# For ins%ance, %he in%ension o+ %he s%a%e(en%G @The (oon is yellow? is arrive& a% by s%ar%in* wi%h %he basic ob>ec%sG the moon, an& is yello . These (us% be %a"en as intensions %o s%ar% wi%h# Je %hen cons%ruc% a new in%ension by %a"in* %he co(bina%ion o+ %hese %wo (ore basic in%ensional ob>ec%s# This new in%ension is a 'ro'osi%ion, i#e# a (a''in* +ro( worl&s an& %i(es %o %ru%h values# 0e% us call %his @P?# The (a''in* +or P is &e%er(ine& as +ollowsG For any worl&-%i(e cou'le, ( ,t1G P (a's ( ,t) %o true >us% in case (i) %he o++ice the moon (a's ( ,t) %o an in&ivi&ual ob>ec%, i, an& (ii) %he o++ice yello (a's ( ,t) %o a class o+ in&ivi&uals, which con%ains i as a (e(ber# P (a's ( ,t) %o false >us% in case (i) %he o++ice the moon (a's ( ,t) %o an in&ivi&ual ob>ec%, i, an& (ii) %he o++ice yello (a's ( ,t) %o a class o+ in&ivi&uals, which &oes no% con%ain i as a (e(ber# P (a's ( ,t) %o no%hin* (null) >us% in case (i) %he o++ice the moon +ails %o (a' ( ,t) %o any in&ivi&ual ob>ec%, i, or (ii) %he o++ice yello +ails %o (a' ( ,t) %o any class o+ in&ivi&uals# (The %hir& case is i('or%an%, an& e5'lains how so(e (eanin*+ul e5'ressions (ay +ail %o have any value in cer%ain circu(s%ances# 4#*# on %his view, %he 'ro'osi%ionG the Ging of (rance is bald curren%ly has no value (is null), ra%her %han bein* +alse, because the Ging of (rance has no value# This &i++ers +ro( 3ussell?s +a(ous analysis o+ such s%a%e(en%s, which woul& (a"e %his 'ro'osi%ion false a% %he 'resen% %i(e# 1% also &i++ers +ro( accoun%s %ha% a%%e('% %o in%ro&uce (ore %han %wo %ru%h-valuesG null is no% a %hir& %ru%h-value, i% is %he lac" o+ any %ru%h-value#) Tich woul& sy(boli!e %he lo*ical s%ruc%ure in in%ensional lo*ic asG t#
    t

    wi%h re'resen%in* %he 'ro'er%y is yello an& M re'resen%in* %he o++ice o+ the moon. :n& %his cons%ruc%s %he sa(e ob>ec% asG M, bu% wi%h %he cons%ruc%ion &is'laye& (ore e5'lici%ly# Bu% Tich?s %heory o+ cons%ruc%ions *oes a s%e' +ur%her, an& e5'lici%ly analyses %he constructions represented by comple* symbols. 1n %he 'resen% case, %he

    <-

    cons%ruc%ion is calle& application, or functional application: %he in%ensional ob>ec% is a''lie& %o %he in%ensional ob>ec% M, as a +unc%ion is a''lie& %o an ar*u(en%, %o *enera%e %he in%ensional ob>ec%G M# The construction itself is e5'lici%ly sy(boli!e& in Tich?s %heory asG t#L- t -M tM (see below)# 1% see(s 'lausible %ha% we ac%ually *ras' such @lo*ical cons%ruc%ions?, so(ehow, as abs%rac% @'roce&ures?, an& %his is cen%ral %o our *ras' o+ (eanin*s# Bu% how (any &i++eren% "in&s o+ cons%ruc%ions are %hereK an we &e+ine %he( allK Aiven %ha% we see( %o un&ers%an& how %o 'er+or( co('le5 cons%ruc%ions by co(binin* si('ler cons%ruc%ions, Tich 'ro'oses %ha% cons%ruc%ions can be &e+ine& recursi%ely, +ro( a +ew si('le or 'ri(i%ive %y'es, which can be a''lie& %o each o%her %o buil& (ore co('le5 cons%ruc%ions# Tich?s (ain %heory o+ cons%ruc%ions 'ro'oses si5 %y'es o+ 'ri(i%ive cons%ruc%ionsG (i) +ariables are 'ri(i%ive cons%ruc%ions, &eno%e& by %er(s li"eG @ t!, " !, "i!, "*!, "y!, "4!, e%c# (ii) Tri%iali4ation is %he si('les% cons%ruc%ionG i% %a"es an ob>ec%, H, an& *enera%es the same object# This cons%ruc%ion is wri%%enG @-H!# (iii) )omposition corres'on&s in%ui%ively %o +unc%ional a''lica%ionG i+ ( is a +unc%ion an& * is an ar*u(en%, we o+%en wri%eG (* %o in&ica%e %he a''lica%ion o+ ( %o *. This cons%ruc%ion is wri%%enG @L( *M?# (iv) )losure corres'on&s in%ui%ively %o wha% we call functional abstraction: i+G @(*! e5'resses %he a''lica%ion o+ ( %o *, %hen we can re%urn %o ( i%sel+ by leavin* a @*a'? +or %he ar*u(en% *. This cons%ruc%ion is wri%%en asG @5#(*!# (v) 2*ecution corres'on&s %o @carryin* ou%? or @e5ecu%in*? a cons%ruc%ion# The e5ecu%ion o+ H is wri%%enG @1H!# (vi) =ouble 2*ecution is use& i+ H cons%ruc%s a cons%ruc%ionD i% corres'on&s %o %he e5ecu%ion o+ %he la%%er# This is wri%%enG @<H!# (There is so(e &is'u%e abou% whe%her %he las% %wo %y'es o+ cons%ruc%ion are ul%i(a%ely necessaryD ;a%erna (1998) &is'enses wi%h %he()# This s(all se% o+ cons%ruc%ions can be a''lie& recursively, %o buil& co('le5 cons%ruc%ions# To &e+ine %his consis%en%ly, Tich was +orce& %o a&o'% a typed hierarchy of constructions, an& %he +ull %heory is .ui%e co('lica%e&# (1n +ac%, his +irs% +or(ula%ion o+ %he %heory, in his (1986) B ons%ruc%ionsC, &oes no% use a %y'e& hierarchy, bu% conse.uen%ly su++ers +ro( an inconsis%ency, si(ilar %o %ha% which 3ussell +oun& in Fre*e?s %heory o+ lo*ic# $e correc%e& %his +law in subse.uen% versions# ;a%erna (1998), ha'%er 3, *ives a *oo& 'resen%a%ion o+ %he essen%ial %heory)# 1 will no% %ry %o e5'lain %he %echnical &e%ails here# Bu% %he conce'%ion o+ %ariables as constructions &eserves s'ecial co((en%, as a (os% re(ar"able an& unusual +ea%ure o+ %he sys%e(#

    +ariables as #onstructions.
    The s%an&ar& %rea%(en% o+ %ariables in (a%he(a%ics an& lo*ic >us% %a"es %he( as letters: "*!, "y!, "t!, e%c# Je wri%e +or(ulas usin* %hese le%%ers, an& we .uan%i+y over %he(# Je evalua%e %heir (eanin*s %hrou*h %he no%ion o+ Tars"ian %aluations, which involves assi*nin* ob>ec%s or in&ivi&uals as values %o variables# 4#*# a universal .uan%i+ica%ionG (For all *)((*) is %rue >us% in caseG (* is %rue on e%ery %aluation of *.

    <1

    Tich uses %he sa(e conce'% o+ %aluations, bu% he has +oun& a way %o in%er're% variables %he(selves objectually, ra%her %han %a"in* %he( as le%%ers, or syn%ac%ic i%e(s# Tha% is, he has +oun& a way %o i&en%i+y variables as objects. The ob>ec%s in .ues%ion, however, are no% or&inary ob>ec%s, or +unc%ions, or any%hin* con%e('la%e& in 'urely in%ensional se(an%icsG variables are a s'ecial "in& o+ primiti%e construction. Xariable le%%ers ("*!, "y!, e%c) are %here+ore %rea%e& as na(es o+ s'ecial ob>ec%s# Xariables are calle& incomplete constructions, because %hey only cons%ruc% s'eci+ic ob>ec%s when %hey are co(bine& wi%h %aluations. Je s%ill use Tars"i-%y'e valua%ions %o brin* variables in%o 'lay# 6u'er+icially, %he (echanics o+ %he sys%e( is li%%le &i++eren% %o %he or&inary %rea%(en% o+ variables# Bu% %here is a &ee' i('ac%G e5'ressions +or variables, li"e all o%her e5'ressions, are *iven an ob>ec%ual in%er're%a%ion, an& %his allows a +ully uni+ie& ob>ec%ual se(an%ics# 1 will now s"e%ch how %his sys%e( is use& %o analyse %he 'revious 'roble( abou% 'ro'osi%ional belie+s#

    Propositional "ttitudes.
    The role o+ cons%ruc%ions co(es %o %he +ore in Tich?s analysis o+ 'ro'osi%ional a%%i%u&es, such as beliefs about propositions# 1 will no% %ry %o e5'lain %he (echanics o+ %his in &e%ail, because %he %heory o+ cons%ruc%ions is %oo involve&, bu% %he *eneral i&ea o+ %he solu%ion is +airly si('le# Tich analyses %he 'ro'osi%ion %ha%G >ohn belie%es that ABC,D as s%a%in* a rela%ion be%ween >ohn (%he in&ivi&ual) an& %he construction re'resen%e& by @1O<V3? (not just the intension)# 7ow %he construction is a co('le5, s%ruc%ure& en%i%y, in which %he 'ri(i%ive cons%ruc%ions o+ A, C, D, B, an& , are 'ar%s# The cons%ruc%ion (when e*ecuted1 %a"es %hese 'ar%s, an& *ives a truth3%alue as a resul%# 6ince belie+s are %a"en as bein* about constructions, a belie+ abou% %he cons%ruc%ionG ABC,D is &is%inc% +ro( a belie+ abou% %he cons%ruc%ionG AE*AE,CFE. The +irs% belie+, +or e5a('le, is in 'ar% a belief about the number DI %he secon& is no% a belie+ abou% %he nu(ber 3 a% all# This %heory also allows us %o in+er %ha% i+G >ohn belie%es that ABC,D, %henG >ohn belie%es that one plus t o e:uals three, because we woul& analyse %he sen%enceG @1O<V3? as re'resen%in* e5ac%ly %he sa(e cons%ruc%ion asG @9ne 'lus %wo e.uals %hree?# This is how Tich 'ro'oses %o solve %he 'roble( o+ in&ivi&ua%in* 'ro'osi%ional belie+s, in a 'urely ob>ec%ual way# :s he says, cons%ruc%ions 'rovi&e a ca%e*ory o+ ob>ec%s which +alls be%ween intensions (which are %oo coarse-*raine& %o in&ivi&ua%e 'ro'osi%ional belie+s), an& sentences (which are %oo +ine-*raine&)# The +ac% %ha% cons%ruc%ionsG (i) see( %o 'rovi&e ob>ec%s which in&ivi&ua%e belie+s wi%h e5ac%ly %he ri*h% &e*ree o+ &e%ail, an& (ii) see( in%ui%ively correc% +or %heir role o+ e5'lainin* how co('le5 (eanin*s are +or(e& +ro( si('ler (eanin*s, an& (iii) allow us %o sa%is+y %he Princi'le o+ o('osi%ionali%y in a 'recise way, *ives a s%ron* case +or a&o'%in* %he( as %he +un&a(en%al ob>ec%s o+ meaning in an ob>ec%ual %heory o+ se(an%ics#

    ,urther Topics.
    1 have s"e%che& so(e &e%ails o+ Tich?s conce'%ion o+ T10D bu% %his is only a brie+ s"e%ch, an& %he +ull &evelo'(en% o+ his sys%e( involves a lo% o+ +ascina%in* 'roble(s# Tich has 'ursue& &ee' .ues%ions abou% %i(e, worl&s, %ru%h, in&ivi&uals, i&en%i%y, lo*ical 'ossibili%y, lo*ical 'ara&o5es, lo*ical li(i%a%ions on lan*ua*es,

    <<

    coun%er+ac%uals, conce'%ual e'is%e(olo*y, lo*ical analysis, an& (any o%her conce'%s %ha% are in%i(a%ely involve& in our sys%e(s o+ un&ers%an&in* (eanin*, lo*ic, (e%a'hysics, an& e('irical "nowle&*e# $e has &one a consi&erable a(oun% o+ %echnical wor" on +oun&a%ional %heories o+ lo*ic, an& his +luen% use %heories such as %he ra(i+ie& %heory o+ %y'es, recursive +unc%ion %heory, abs%rac%ion o'era%ors, an& Ao&elisa%ion %echni.ues can be .ui%e &e(an&in* a% %i(es# $owever %he 'ri(ary +ocus in (os% o+ his wor" is on conce'%ual analysis an& ar*u(en%s, rarely on +or(al resul%s +or %heir own sa"e, an& al%hou*h his ar*u(en%s are .ui%e &e%aile& an& &ense a% %i(es, (uch o+ his wor" is a''roachable wi%hou% re.uirin* (uch s'eciali!e& %rainin* in (a%he(a%ical lo*ic#

    -eneral References.
    Materna, Pavel. 1998. Concepts and Objects. Acta Philosophica Fenica, vol. 63. The best boo' on TichJ!s theory of Transparent Intensional Logic to date, Materna presents many of the ideas of TIL, and de%elops his o n original treatment of many points. <uite technical. Montague, Richard. 1974. Formal Philosophy: Selected Papers of Richard Montague. !dited "# Rich$ond %ho$ason.& 'ale (niversit# Press. The classic collection of papers by the famous in entor of intensional logic. )ddie, *raha$. 1986. !i"eness to Truth. +. Reidel. This presents the theory of # erisimilitude$% originated by Oddie and Tich& % to try to sol e the problem of ho' the eracity of scientific theories can be judged. (nspired by Tich& $s )*+,-. paper on Popper$s theory% this contains clear and simple e/planations of the concept of the #logical space$ employed by Tich&. %,- %ransparent ,ntensional -ogic& .e"site/
    h%%'GNNwww#'hil#(uni#c!N+ilNlo*i"aN%ilNin&e5#h%(l

    This 'ebsite is a primary reference point for scholars interested in Tich&% and contains an e/tensi e collection of papers% references% and biographical details. T'o good papers for the specialist to begin 'ith: +u01, Marie and Pavel Materna. 23onstructions4
    http://www.phil.muni.cz/fil/logika/til/constructions_duzi_materna.pdf

    +u01, Marie and Pavel Materna. 2Par$enides5 principle4


    http://www.phil.muni.cz/fil/logika/til/materna_duzi_parmenides.pdf

    %ich6 , Pavel. 1988. The Foundations of Frege$s !ogic% de *ru#ter, 7erlin and 8e9 'or:.

    <3

    Tich& $s most important single 'or"% this boo" introduces many of the ideas of T(!% although it does not replace many of the detailed discussions found in his earlier papers. van 7enthe$, ;ohan and Alice ter Meulen, 1997. 0andboo" of !ogic and !anguage. M.,.%. Press. 1 generally outstanding scholarly reference on modern logic and intensional semantics% but unfortunately 'ith little ac"no'ledgement of Tich& $s 'or".

    <4

    *ibliograph$: Pavel Tich.


    The +ollowin* is a +airly co('le%e biblio*ra'hy o+ Tich?s wor"#

    *ooks.
    1. !ogi"a pro P( )!ogic for Pedagogical (nstitutes.% Prague 1963, 191 pp. <. !ogic"a sta ba edec"eho ja2y"a )The !ogical Structure of the !anguage of Science.% Prague 1968, <7< pp. 3# The Foundations of Frege$s !ogic% de *ru#ter, 7erlin and 8e9 'or: 1988, 333 pp.

    #ollected Papers in Logic and Philosoph$.


    1. !ine !=position des *>delischen (nvollst?ndig:eits"e9eises in der ein@achen %#pentheorie% 1cta 3ni ersitatis Carolinae% Philosophica et 0istorica A% 9AB7, 196<. <# MaC1 logic:# pravdivD vEt# o"sahF% Filosofic"& 4asopis 13% *+56% 78975. 3# G poC$u pro"lD$u a HeIitelnosti% :yberneti"a 3% *+55% *;69 *;+. 4# G e=pli:aci poC$u o"sah vY%y, Filosofic"& 4asopis 14% *+55% <5-9<,8. ,# J$#sl a procedura% Filosofic"& 4asopis% *+57. 6# ,ntentions in %er$s o@ %uring Machines, Studia !ogica <6, 1969, 2-<,# 7. An Approach to ,ntensional Anal#sis, =o>s A, <73B97, 1971. 8. )n the Kicious 3ircle in +e@initions, Studia !ogica <8, 19B4L, 1971. 9. J#nthetic 3o$ponents o@ ,n@inite 3lasses o@ Postulates, 1rchi f. Mathematische !ogi" und ?rundlagenforschung 17, 167B78, 1971. 1L. Plantinga on !ssence/ A Fe9 Muestions, The Philosophical Re ie' 81, 8<B93, 197<.

    <,

    11. 1<. 13. 14. 1A. 16. 17. 18. 19. <L. <1. <<. <3. <4. <A. <6. <7. <8.

    )n de dicto Modalities in Muanti@ied JA, @ournal of )n Popper5s +e@initions o@ Kerisi$ilitude, Aritish @ournal .hat +o .e %al: A"outF, Philosophy of Science 4<, 8LB A 3ountere=a$ple to the Jtalna:erB-e9is Anal#sis o@ Kerisi$ilitude Rede@ined, Aritish @ournal for the Kerisi$ilitude Revisited, SynthBse 38, 17AB96, 1978. %9o Ginds o@ ,ntensional -ogic, Cpistemologia 1, 143B64, A 8e9 %heor# o@ Ju"Cunctive 3onditionals, SynthBse 37, Muestions, Ans9ers, and -ogic, 1merican Philosophical +e dicto and de re, Philosophia 8, 1B16, 1978. !=istence and *od, The @ournal of Philosophy 76, 4L3B Merrill on .hat a Jentence Ja#s, Philosophical Studies %he %ransienc# o@ %ruth, Theoria 46, 16AB8<, 198L. %he -ogic o@ %e$poral +iscourse, !inguistics and %he Je$antics o@ !pisodic Ker"s, Theoretical !inguistics Foundations o@ Partial %#pe %heor#, Reports on %he -ogic o@ A"ilit#, Freedo$ and Responsi"ilit#, Studia Grip:e on 8ecessit# a posteriori, Philosophical Studies

    Philosophical !ogic <, 387B9<, 1973. for the Philosophy of Science <A, 1AAB88, 1974. 93, 197A. 3ounter@actuals, Philosophical Studies <9, <71B3, 1976. Philosophy of Science <7, <AB4<, 1976.

    1978. 433BA7, 1978. Duarterly 1A, <7AB84, 1978.

    <L, 1979. 37, 197B<LL, 198L.

    Philosophy 3, 373B369, 198L. 7, <64B96, 198L. Mathematical !ogic 14, A<B7<, 198<. !ogica 41, <<7B48, 198<, coBauthor *raha$ )ddie. 43, <<AB41, 1983.

    <6

    <9. 3L. 31. 3<. 33. 34. 3A. 36.

    A"ilit# and Freedo$, 1merican Philosophical Duarterly Ju"Cunctive 3onditionals/ %9o Para$eters vs. %hree, +o .e 8eed ,nterval Je$anticsF, !inguistics and ,ndiscerni"ilit# o@ ,denticals, Studia !ogica 4A, <A7B73, Putna$ on 7rains in a Kat, Philosophia 16, 137B46, Frege and the 3ase o@ the Missing Jense, ?ra2er 3onstructions, Philosophy of Science A3, A14B34, 1986. %9o Fallacies o@ For$al Je$antics, Cssays in 0onour of

    <L, 13AB47, 1983, coBauthor *raha$ )ddie. Philosophical Studies 4A, 1984. Philosophy 8, <63B8<, 198A. 1986. 1986. Philosophische Studien <7, <7B47, 1986.

    Aob Eurrant Martin Fric:D ed.&, 1A6B177, )tago (niversit#, 1986. 37. 38. !inNeldinge als A$tsinha"er% Feitschrift f. Semioti" +% Resplicing Properties in the Jupervenience 7ase% *<96;% *+7,. Philosophical Studies A8, <A9B69, 199L, coBauthor *raha$ )ddie. 39. 4L. 41. 4<. 43. 44. Jinn und 7edeutung Revisited, From the !ogical Point of %he Jcandal o@ -inguistics, From the !ogical Point of %he Tractatus in the -ight o@ ,ntensional -ogic, From the 3rac:ing the 8atural -anguage 3ode, From the !ogical %he M#th o@ 8onBRigid +esignators, From the !ogical %he Anal#sis o@ 8atural -anguage, Fro$ the !ogical Gie' 1, 1B1L, 199<. Gie' 1, 7LB8L, 199<. !ogical Point of Gie', Kol. 3, 8o.<, 3<B41, 1994. Point of Gie', Kol. 3, 6B19, 1994. Point of Gie', Kol. 3, 8o.< <LB3L, 1994. Point of Gie', Kol. 3, 8o.<, 4<B8L, 1994.

    <2

    4A. 46.

    3onstructions as the Ju"CectBMatter o@ Mathe$atics, )n ,n@erence, The !ogica Hearboo" *++7, %i$oth#

    The Foundational Eebate, Kienna, 199A. 3hilders ed.&, Filoso@ia, Prague, 73B8A, 1999, coBauthor ;indra %ich6.

    <8

    "ckno.ledge!ents.
    Ara%e+ul ac"nowle&*e(en%s *o %o /r# ;arie /u!i an& Pro+essor Pavel ;a%erna +or &e%aile& co((en%s on earlier &ra+%s, an& 'rovi&in* an u'-%o-&a%e biblio*ra'hy o+ Tich?s wor"# :ny re(ainin* errors are %he res'onsibili%y o+ %he au%hor# Xalue >u&*(en%s e5'resse& in %his ar%icle are en%irely %he o'inion o+ %he au%hor#

    "ndre. /olster.

    <9

    Potrebbero piacerti anche