Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-wxvwp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-14T16:54:18.261Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Systems of Substitutional Semantics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

Daniel Bonevac
Daniel Bonevac*
Affiliation:
Center for Cognitive Science, The University of Texas at Austin
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

I investigate substitutional interpretations of quantifiers that count existential sentences true just in case they have true instances in a parametric extension of the language. I devise a semantics meeting four criteria: (1) it accounts adequately for natural language quantification; (2) it provides an account of justification in abstract sciences; (3) it constitutes a continuous semantics for natural and formal languages; and (4) it is purely substitutional, containing no appeal to referential interpretations. The prospects for a purely substitutional theory of quantification are thus no worse than for a referential account.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 51 , Issue 4 , December 1984, pp. 631 - 656
Copyright
Copyright © Philosophy of Science Association 1984

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

†

I am grateful to Nicholas Asher, to Allen Hazen, to Hans Kamp, and to two anonymous referees for their helpful comments on an earlier draft of this paper, and the Center for Cognitive Science of the University of Texas at Austin for its research support.

References

Barwise, J., and Cooper, R. (1981), “Generalized Quantifiers and Natural Language”, Linguistics and Philosophy 4: 159–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benacerraf, P. (1973), “Mathematical Truth”, Journal of Philosophy 70: 661–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beth, E. W. (1959), The Foundations of Mathematics. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Bonevac, D. A. (1982), Reduction in the Abstract Sciences. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Bonevac, D. A. (1983), “Freedom and Truth in Mathematics”, Erkenntnis 20: 93–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cantor, G. (1883), “Uber unendliche, lineare Punktmannigfaltigkeiten”, Mathematische Annalen 21: 545–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1982), Lectures on Government and Binding, Dordrecht: Foris Publications.Google Scholar
Dunn, J. M., and Belnap, N. D. Jr. (1968), “The Substitution Interpretation of the Quantifiers”, Noûs 2: 177–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Field, H. (1977), “Logic, Meaning, and Conceptual Role”, Journal of Philosophy 74: 379–409.Google Scholar
Geach, P. (1968), Reference and Generality. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Gottlieb, D. (1980), Ontological Economy: Substitutional Quantification and Mathematics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Henkin, L. (1953) “Some Notes on Nominalism”, Journal of Symbolic Logic 18: 19–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kraut, R. (1980), “Indiscernibility and Ontology”, Synthese 44: 113–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kripke, S. (1976), “Is There a Problem About Substitutional Quantification?”, in Truth and Meaning, Evans, G., and McDowell, J. (eds.). Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Leblanc, H. (1976), Truth-Value Semantics. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Leblanc, H., and Wisdom, W. (1976), Deductive Logic. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
Loux, M. (1977), “Ontology”, in The Synoptic Vision: Essays on the Philosophy of Wilfrid Sellars, Delaney, C. F., Loux, M. J., Gutting, G., and Solomon, W. D., (eds.). Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
Marcus, R. (1972), “Quantification and Ontology”, Noûs 4: 240–50.Google Scholar
Parsons, C. (1971), “A Plea for Substitutional Quantification”, Journal of Philosophy 68: 231–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quine, W. V. (1974), The Roots of Reference. La Salle: Open Court.Google Scholar
Quine, W. V. (1976), “Grades of Discriminability”, Journal of Philosophy 73: 113–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schutte, K. (1960), “Syntactical and Semantical Properties of Simple Type Theory”, Journal of Symbolic Logic 25: 305–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sellars, W. (1948), “Realism and the New Way of Words”, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 8: 424–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sicha, J. (1974), A Metaphysics of Elementary Mathematics. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press.Google Scholar
Sicha, J. (1978), “Logic: the Fundamentals of a Sellarsian Theory”, in The Philosophy of Wilfrid Sellars: Queries and Extensions, Pitt, Joseph C. (ed.). Dordrecht: D. Reidel.Google Scholar
Wallace, J. (1972), “On the. Frame of Reference”, in Semantics of Natural Language, Davidson, D., and Harman, G., (eds.). Dordrecht: D. Reidel.Google Scholar