Advertisement

The Pragmatic Definition of Proposition in Terms of Assertion or Assertability

  • Paul Gochet
Chapter
Part of the Synthese Library book series (SYLI, volume 98)

Abstract

We saw that Johnson defined the proposition as that of which one can predicate the ‘true’ and the ‘false’. But, this distinction has its roots in another, according to that author, the distinction between the correct and erroneous:

Thus, though we may predicate of a certain proposition… that it is true or that it is false, what this ultimately means is, that any and every thinker who might at any time assert the proposition would be either exempt or not exempt from error.1

As the distinction between correct and mistaken appears fundamental to him, Johnson constructs a new definition of the proposition whose role is to bring out the relations between the proposition and the assertion.

Keywords

Propositional Content Declarative Sentence Illocutionary Force Hypothetical Statement Assertion Sign 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    W. E. Johnson, Logic, 1921, Dover, New York, 1964, Part. I, p. 3–4.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    W. E. Johnson, Ibid., p. 4.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    W. E. Johnson, Ibid., p. 3.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    J. Lyons, Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics, Cambridge University Press. 1968, p. 439.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    P. T. Geach, ‘Assertion’, Philosophical Review 74, (1965) 449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Geach, Ibid., p. 450.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    G. Ryle, ‘If, So, and Because’, in M. Black (ed.), Philosophical Analysis, Cornell, Ithaca, 1950, pp. 323–340.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    J. Searle, Speech Acts, Cambridge University Press, 1969, p. 3.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Searle, Ibid., p. 29.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Searle, Ibid., p. 29.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Searle, Ibid., p. 30.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    R. M. Hare, ‘Meaning and Speech Acts, Philosophical Review 79, (1970) 20–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    E. Stenius, ‘Mood and Language-Game’, Synthese 17, (1967), reprinted in J. W. Davis, D. J. Hockney and W. K. Wilson (eds.), Philosophical Logic, Reidel, Dordrecht, p. 253.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    D. Lewis, ‘General Semantics’, Synthese 20, (1970), reprinted in D. Davidson and G. Harman (eds.), Semantics of Natural Language, Reidel, Dordrecht, p. 207.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    J. Ross, ‘On Declarative Sentences’ in R. A. Jacobs and P. S. Rosenbaum (eds.), Readings in English Transformational Grammar, Waltham, Ginn/Blaisdell, 1970, pp. 254–261.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    G. Gazdar, ‘On Performative Sentences’, Semantikos 1 (1976) 37–62.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    R. Hausser, ‘Surface Compositionality and the Semantics of Mood’, Amsterdam Papers in Formal Grammar, Vol. II, 1978, p. 176 (pp. 174–193 ).Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    W. V. O. Quine, Word and Object, Holt, New York, 1960, p. 206.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Quint, Ibid., p. 207.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht, Holland 1980

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paul Gochet
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyState University of LiègeBelgium

Personalised recommendations