Abstract
AbstractIs there a relation of logical consequence in natural language? Logicality, in the philosophical literature, has been conceived of as a restrictive phenomenon that is at odds with the unbridled richness and complexity of natural language. This article claims that there is a relation of logical consequence in natural language, and moreover, that it is the subject matter of the bulk of current theories of formal semantics. I employ the framework of semantic constraints (Sagi in Log Anal 57(227):259–276, 2014), which generalizes the Tarskian definition of logical consequence. I apply the widely accepted criterion of invariance under isomorphisms (Sher in J. Symb Log 61(2):653–686, 1996) generalized to the framework of semantic constraints (Sagi in Bull Symb Log 28(1):104–132, 2022b), combined with a theory of Glanzberg (in Metasemantics: new essays on the foundations of meaning, 2014) to delineate the relation of logical consequence in natural language.
Funder
Israeli Science Foundation
University of Haifa
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference27 articles.
1. Chierchia, G. (2013). Logic in grammar: Polarity, free choice, and intervention Logic in grammar: Polarity, free choice, and intervention (Vol. 2). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
2. Chierchia, G. (2021). On being trivial: Grammar vs. logic. In G. Sagi & J. Woods (Eds.), The semantic conception of logic (pp. 227–248). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
3. Chierchia, G., & McConnell-Ginet, S. (1990). Meaning and grammar meaning and grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
4. Del Pinal, G. (2019). The logicality of language: A new take on triviality, “ungrammaticality’’, and logical form. Noûs, 534, 785–818.
5. Dowty, D. R. (1979). Word meaning and Montague grammar. Dordrecht: Reidel.