, Volume 78, Issue 6, pp 1381–1403 | Cite as

First Order Expressivist Logic

  • John Cantwell
Original Article


This paper provides finitary jointly necessary and sufficient acceptance and rejection conditions for the logical constants of a first order quantificational language. By introducing the notion of making an assignment as a distinct object level practice—something you do with a sentence—(as opposed to a meta-level semantic notion) and combining this with the practice of (hypothetical and categorical) acceptance and rejection and the practice of making suppositions one gains a structure that is sufficiently rich to fully characterize the class of classical first order theories. The analysis thus provides a way of characterizing classical first order quantification by expressivist means.


  1. Adams, E. W. (1975). The logic of conditionals. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Blackburn, S. (1993). Essays in quasi-realism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Brandom, R. (1994). Making it explicit. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Brandom, R. (2008). Between saying and doing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Carnap, R. (1937). Philosophy and logical syntax. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co.Google Scholar
  6. Dummett, M. (1977). Elements of intuitionism. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  7. Dummett, M. (1991). The logical basis of metaphysics. London: Duckworth.Google Scholar
  8. Edgington, D. (1995). On conditionals. Mind, 104, 235–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gentzen, G. (1969). Investigations into logical deduction. In Szabo, M. (Eds.), The collected works of Gerhard Gentzen. Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
  10. Gibbard, A. (1990). Wise choices, apt feelings. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Groenendijk, J., & Stockhof, M. (1991). Dynamic predicate logic. Linguistics and Philosophy, 14(1), 39–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Humberstone, L. (2000). The revival of rejective negation. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 29, 331–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kamp, H., & Reyle, U. (1993). From discourse to logic. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  14. Prawitz, D. (1965). Natural deduction: A proof-theoretical study. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.Google Scholar
  15. Price, H. (1983a). Does ‘probably’ modify sense? Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 61, 396–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Price, H. (1983b). Sense, assertion, Dummett and denial. Mind, 92, 161–173.Google Scholar
  17. Quine, W. V. (1960). Variables explained away. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 104(3), 343–347.Google Scholar
  18. Quine, W. V. (1993). From stimulus to science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Ramsey, F. P. (1931). Truth and probability. In R. B. Braithwaite (Ed.), Foundations of mathematics and other essays. New York: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  20. Restall, G. (2012). Anti-realist classical logic and realist mathematics. In S. Rahman, G. Primiero, & M. Marion (Eds.), The realism-antirealism debate in the age of alternative logics (pp. 269–284). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Rumfitt, I. (2000). Yes and no. Mind, 109, 781–823.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Smiley, T. (1996). Rejection. Analysis, 56, 1–9.Google Scholar
  23. Stevenson, C. (1937). The emotive meaning of ethical terms. Mind, 46, 14–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Yalcin, S. (2007). Epistemic modals. Mind, 116, 983–1026.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Royal Institute of TechnologyStockholmSweden

Personalised recommendations