Advertisement

Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

The logical structure of linguistic commitment II: Systems of relevant commitment entailment

  • 65 Accesses

  • 4 Citations

Abstract

In “The Logical Structure of Linguistic Commitment I” (The Journal of Philosophical Logic 23 (1994), 369–400), we sketch a linguistic theory (inspired by Brandom's Making it Explicit) which includes an “expressivist” account of the implication connective, →: the role of → is to “make explicit” the inferential proprieties among possible commitments which proprieties determine, in part, the significances of sentences. This motivates reading (A → B) as “commitment to A is, in part, commitment to B”. Our project is to study the logic of →. LSLC I approximates (A → B) as “anyone committed to A is committed to B”, ignoring issues of whether A is relevant to B. The present paper includes considerations of relevance, motivating systems of relevant commitment entailment related to the systems of commitment entailment of LSLC I. We also consider the relevance logics that result from a commitment reading of Fine's semantics for relevance logics, a reading that Fine suggests.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Anderson, Alan Ross, and Nuel Dinsmore BelnapJr., 1975. Entailment: The Logic of Relevance and Necessity, Volume I. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.

  2. Anderson, Alan Ross, Nuel Dinsmore BelnapJr., and J. Michael Dunn 1992. Entailment: The Logic of Relevance and Necessity, Volume II. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.

  3. Brandom, Robert 1983. “Asserting”. Nous 17, 637–650.

  4. Brandom, Robert 1985. “Varieties of Understanding”, in Rescher 1985, 27–51.

  5. Brandom, Robert 1994. Making it Explicit. Harvard University Press.

  6. Fine, Kit 1974. “Models for Entailment”, Journal of Philosophical Logic 3, 347–352.

  7. Hughes, G. E. and M.J. Cresswell 1984. A Companion to Modal Logic. Methuen, London.

  8. Lance, Mark 1988. Normative Inferential Vocabulary: the explicitation of social linguistic practice, Doctoral Dissertation, University of Pittsburgh.

  9. Lance, Mark 1988a. “On the logic of contingent relevant implication: a conceptual incoherence in the intuitive interpretation of R”, Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 29(4), 520–528.

  10. Lance, Mark and Philip Kremer 1994. “The Logical Structure of Linguistic Commitment I: four systems of non-relevant commitment entailment”, Journal of Philosophical Logic 23(4), 369–400.

  11. Rescher, Nicholas 1985 (ed). Reason and Rationality in Natural Science: A Group of Essays. University Press of America, Lanham MD.

  12. Routley, Richard, Val Plumwood, Robert K. Meyer, and Ross T. Brady, 1982. Relevant Logics and Their Rivals, Part I. Ridgeview Publishing Co., Atascadero, CA.

  13. Urquhart, Alasdair 1972. “Semantics for Relevant Logics”, The Journal of Symbolic Logic 37, 159–169.

  14. Urquhart, Alasdair 1973. The Semantics of Entailment. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Pittsburgh, University Microfilms, Ann Arbor, MI.

Download references

Author information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lance, M., Kremer, P. The logical structure of linguistic commitment II: Systems of relevant commitment entailment. J Philos Logic 25, 425–449 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00249667

Download citation

Keywords

  • Logical Structure
  • Linguistic Theory
  • Relevance Logic
  • Relevant Commitment
  • Linguistic Commitment