Dialogues, Reasons and Endorsement

  • Shahid RahmanEmail author
Part of the Logic, Epistemology, and the Unity of Science book series (LEUS, volume 44)


The main aim of the present paper is to show that, if we follow the dialogical insight that reasoning and meaning are constituted during interaction, and we develop this insight in a dialogical framework for Martin-Löf’s Constructive Type Theory, a conception of knowledge emerges that has important links with Robert Brandom’s (1994, 2000) inferential pragmatism. However, there are also some significant differences that are at center of the dialogical approach to meaning. The present paper does not discuss explicitly phenomenology, however, one might see our proposal as setting the basis for a further study linking phenomenology and the dialogical conception of meaning—the development of such a link is part of several ongoing researches.


Dialogical logic Transcendental logic Truth Consequence Structural rules Particle rules Phenomenology Intentionality Play-level Strategy-level 



I would like to thank the Laboratory STL: UMR-CNRS 8163 and to Leone Gazziero (STL), Laurent Cesalli (Genève), and Claudio Majolino (STL), leaders of the ANR-Project SEMAINO, for fostering the research leading to the present study.

Many thanks to Christina Weiss for her superb editorial work. My thanks also to Zoe McConaughey (STL), Steephen Eckoubili (STL), Clément Lion (STL), Muhammad Iqbal (STL) and Mohammad Shafiei (U. Shahid Beheshti) for fruitful discussions, and to the reviewers who suggested important improvements.


  1. Austin, J. L. (1946). Other minds. The Aristotelian Society Supplementary, 20, 148–187.Google Scholar
  2. Brandom, R. (1994). Making it explicit. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Brandom, R. (1997). A study guide. In W. Sellars (Ed.), Empiricism and the philosophy of mind (pp. 119–189). Cambridge-Mass: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Brandom, R. (2000). Articulating reasons. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Clerbout, N. (2014a). First-order dialogical games and tableaux. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 43(4), 785–801.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Clerbout, N. (2014b). Étude sur quelques sémantiques dialogiques: Concepts fondamentaux et éléments de métathéorie. London: College Publications.Google Scholar
  7. Clerbout, N., & Rahman, S. (2015). Linking game-theoretical approaches with constructive type theory: Dialogical strategies as CTT-demonstrations. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Crubellier, M. (2014). Aristote, Premiers analytiques. Traduction, introduction et commentaire. Garnier-Flammarion.Google Scholar
  9. Duthil-Novaes, C. (2007). Formalizing Medieval Logical Theories. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Duthil Novaes, C. (2015). A dialogical, multiagent account of the normativity of logic. Dialectica, 69(4), 587–609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Duthil Novaes, C., & French, R. (2018). A dialogical, multiagent account of the normativity of logic. Philosophical Issues., 28(4), 129–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dybjer, P. (1994, July). Inductive families. Form Asp Comput vol. 6, pp. 440–465. Formal Aspects of Computing, 6, pp. 440–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Herder, J. G. (1960[1772]). Abhandulung über der Ursprung der Sprache. In E. Heintel, Johann Gottfried Herder. Spachphilosophische Schriften. (pp. 3–87). Hamburg: Felix Meiner.Google Scholar
  14. Hintikka, J. (1973). Logic, language-games and information: Kantian themes in the philosophy of logic. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  15. Hintikka, J. (1996). Ludwig Wittgenstein: Half truths and one-and-a-half truths. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hodges, W. (2001). Dialogue foundations: A sceptical look. Aristotelian Society Supplementary, 75(1), 17–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hodges, W. (2008). Logic and games. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.Google Scholar
  18. Keiff, L. (2004). Heuristique formelle et logiques modales non normales. Philosophia Scientiae, 8(2), 39–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Keiff, L. (2007). Le Pluralisme dialogique: Approches dynamiques de l’argumentation formelle. Lille: PhD.Google Scholar
  20. Keiff, L. (2009). Dialogical Logic. (E. N. Zalta, Ed.) Retrieved from The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
  21. Klev, A. (2017). The Justification of Identity Elimination in Martin-Löf’s Type Theory. Topoi, pp. 1-25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Krabbe, E. C. (1985). Formal Systems of Dialogue Rules. Synthese, 63, 295–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lorenz, K. (1970). Elemente der Sprachkritik. Eine Alternative zum Dogmatismus und Skeptizismus in der Analytischen Philosophie. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  24. Lorenz, K. (1981). Dialogical logic. In W. Marciszewsku (Ed.), Dictionary of logic as applied in the study of language (pp. 117–125). The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lorenz, K. (2001). Basic objectives of dialogue logic in historical perspective. Synthese, 127(1–2), 225–263.Google Scholar
  26. Lorenz, K. (2009). Dialogischer Konstruktivismus. Berlin and New York: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
  27. Lorenz, K. (2010). Logic, Language and Method. Berlin and New York: De GruyterGoogle Scholar
  28. Lorenz, K. (2011). Philosophische Variationen: Gesammelte Aufsätze unter Einschluss gemeinsam mit Jürgen Mittelstrass greschrievener Arbeiten zu Platon und Leibniz. Berlin / New York: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
  29. Lorenzen, P. (1955). Einführung in die operative Logik und Mathematik. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  30. Marion, M. (2006). Hintikka on Wittgenstein: from language games to game semantics. In T. Aho & A.-V. Pietarinen (Eds.), Truth and games: Essays in honour of Gabriel Sandu (pp. 237–256). Helsinki: Acta Philosophica Fennica.Google Scholar
  31. Marion, M. (2009). Why play logical games? In O. Majer, A. V. Pietarinen, & T. Tulenheimo (Eds.), Logic and games: unifying logic (pp. 3–26). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  32. Marion, M. (2010). Between saying and doing: From Lorenzen to Brandom and back. In P. E. Bour, M. Rebuschi, & L. Rollet (Eds.), Constructions: Essays in honour of Gerhard Heinzmann (pp. 489–497). London: College Publications.Google Scholar
  33. Marion, M., & Rückert, H. (2015). Aristotle on universal quantification: a study from the perspective of game semantics. History and Philosophy of Logic, 37(3), 201–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Martin-Löf, P. (1971). Hauptsatz for the intuitionistic theory of iterated inductive definitions. In J. E. Fenstad (Ed.), Proceedings of the Second Scandinavian Logic Symposium (pp. 179–216). Amsterdam: North-Holland.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Martin-Löf, P. (1984). Intuitionistic type theory. Notes by Giovanni Sambin of a Series of Lectures given in Padua, June 1980. Naples: Bibliopolis.Google Scholar
  36. Martin-Löf, P. (2014). Truth of empirical propositions: Lecture held at the University of Leiden, February 2014. Transcription by Amsten Klev.Google Scholar
  37. Martin-Löf, P. (2015). Is logic part of normative ethics? Lecture held at the research Unity Sciences, Normes, Décisions (FRE 3593), Paris, May 2015. Transcription by Amsten Klev.Google Scholar
  38. Martin-Löf, P. (2017a). Assertion and request. Lecture held at Oslo, 2017. Transcription by Ansten Klev.Google Scholar
  39. Martin-Löf, P. (2017b). Assertion and request. Lecture held at Stockholm. Transcription by Ansten Klev.Google Scholar
  40. McDowell, J. (2009). Having the world in view: Essays on Kant, Hegel, and Sellars. Harvard: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Peregrin, J. (2014). Inferentialism: Why rules matter. New York: Plagrave MacMillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Prior, A. (1960). The Runabout inference-ticket. Analysis, 21, 38–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Rahman, S. (2012). Negation in the logic of first degree entailment and tonk: A dialogical study. In Rahman S, Primiero, & M. Marion (Eds.), The realism-antirealism debate in the age of alternative logics (pp. 213–250). Springer: Netherlands.Google Scholar
  44. Rahman, S., & Iqbal, M. (2018). Unfolding parallel reasoning in islamic jurisprudence (I). Epistemic and dialectical meaning within Abū Isḥāq al-Shīrāzī’s system of co-relational inferences of the occasioning factor. Cambridge Journal of Arabic Sciences and Philosophy, 28, 67–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Rahman, S., & Keiff, L. (2005). On how to be a dialogician. In D. Vanderveken (Ed.), Logic, thought and action (pp. 359–408). Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Rahman, S., McConaughey, Z., Klev, A., Clerbout, N. (2018). Immanent Reasoning. A plaidoyer for the Play-Level. Dordrecht: Springer, in print.Google Scholar
  47. Rahman, S., Clerbout, N., & Keiff, L. (2009). On dialogues and natural deduction. In G. Primiero & S. Rahman (Eds.), Acts of knowledge: History, philosophy and logic: Essays dedicated to Göran Sundholm (pp. 301–336). London: College Publications.Google Scholar
  48. Rahman, S., Redmond, J., & Clerbout, N. (2017).Google Scholar
  49. Ranta, A. (1988). Propositions as games as types. Synthese, 76, 377–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Read, S. (2008). Harmony and modality. In C. Dégremont, L. Kieff, & H. Rückert (Eds.), Dialogues, logics and other strange things: Essays in honour of Shahid Rahman (pp. 285–303). London: College Publications.Google Scholar
  51. Read, S. (2010). General elimination harmony and the meaning of the logical constants. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 39, 557–576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Redmond, J., & Rahman, S. (2016). Armonía Dialógica: tonk Teoría Constructiva de Tipos y Reglas para Jugadores Anónimos. Theoria, 31(1), 27–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Sellars, W. (1991). Science perception and reality. Atascadero-California: Ridgeview Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  54. Shafiei, M. (2017). Intentionnalité et signification: Une approche dialogique. Paris: PHD-thesis, Sorbonne.Google Scholar
  55. Sundholm, G. (1997). Implicit epistemic aspects of constructive logic. Journal of Logic, Language and Information, 6(2), 191–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Sundholm, G. (2001). A plea for logical atavism. In O. Majer (Ed.), The logica yearbook 2000 (pp. 151–162). Prague: Filosofía.Google Scholar
  57. Sundholm, G. (2006). Semantic Values for Natural Deduction Derivations. Synthese, 148, 623–638.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Sundholm, G. (2012). Inference versus consequence revisited: inference, conditional, implication. Synthese, 187, 943–956.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Sundholm, G. (2013, December 2–3). Inference and consequence as an interpreted language.Google Scholar
  60. Trafford, J. (2017). Meaning in dialogue: An interactive approach to logic and reasoning. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Université de Lille, Philosophie, CNRS-UMR: 8176Villeneuve d’AscqFrance

Personalised recommendations