Logic and Semantics for Imperatives
نویسنده
چکیده
In this paper I will develop a view about the semantics of imperatives, which I term Modal Noncognitivism, on which imperatives might be said to have truth conditions (dispositionally, anyway), but on which it does not make sense to see them as expressing propositions (hence does not make sense to ascribe to them truth or falsity). This view stands against “Cognitivist” accounts of the semantics of imperatives, on which imperatives are claimed to express propositions, which are then enlisted in explanations of the relevant logico-semantic phenomena. It also stands against the major competitors to Cognitivist accounts—all of which are non-truthconditional and, as a result, fail to provide satisfying explanations of the fundamental semantic characteristics of imperatives (or so I argue). The view of imperatives I defend here improves on various treatments of imperatives on the market in giving an empirically and theoretically adequate account of their semantics and logic. It yields explanations of a wide range of semantic and logical phenomena about imperatives— explanations that are, I argue, at least as satisfying as the sorts of explanations of semantic and logical phenomena familiar from truth-conditional semantics. But it accomplishes this while defending the notion—which is, I argue, substantially correct—that imperatives could not have propositions, or truth conditions, as their meanings. This work has benefited greatly from the input of others. I would like to thank Andrew Alwood, Chris Barker, Simon Charlow, Allan Gibbard, Benj Hellie, Paul Portner, Will Starr, Eric Swanson, and Richmond Thomason, as well as audiences at the Association for Symbolic Logic’s 2011 APA Group Session on Dynamic Semantics, Cornell University, École Normale Supérieure, NYU, University of Toronto, and York University. Thanks also to two anonymous referees for this journal. N. Charlow (!) Department of Philosophy, University of Toronto, 170 St. George Street, Toronto, ON M5R 2M8, Canada e-mail: [email protected]
منابع مشابه
A Paraconsistent Logic for Contrary-to-Duty Imperatives
Contrart-to-duty imperatives are those which tell us what we ought to do if we violate some of our obligations. In this work, we give an inconsistencyfriendly framework for contrary-to-duty imperatives and introduce three semantics for it: static, dynamic and topological. The static semantics uses the standard modal paraconsistent approach whereas the dynamic semantics views violations as dynam...
متن کاملImperatives and Deontic Logic
Deontic logic has so far been almost exclusively interpreted by a possible worlds semantics and ideality or preference relations between the worlds. In distinguishing itself from attempts at a logic of norms or logic of imperatives, deontic logic has portrayed its formulas as ‘deontic propositions’, true or false statements about what is obligatory, permitted or forbidden according to some unsp...
متن کاملA logic and semantics for imperatives
Truth is undefined for imperative statements. However, if imperatives implicitly reference a fact, they can be rephrased as truth-valuable declaratives explicitly referencing that fact. But are there such facts? Kenny held that any imperative references a set of wishes held by its imperator. I extend his thesis by proposing that imperator wishes are facts implicitly referenced by imperatives an...
متن کاملSets, Sentences, and Some Logics about Imperatives
Though deontic logic is regarded as the logic of normative reasoning, norms – as entities lacking truth values – are usually represented neither in its language nor its semantics. Limiting ourselves to unconditional imperatives, we propose a concept for their semantic representation and show that existing systems of monadic and dyadic deontic logic can be reconstructed accordingly.
متن کاملA Preference Semantics for Imperatives
There is a rich canon of work on the meaning of imperative sentences, e.g. Dance!, in philosophy and much recent research in linguistics has made its own exciting advances. However, I argue here that three kinds of observations about imperatives are problematic for approaches from both traditions. I contend that these shortcomings stem from an entirely standard assumption of these semantic theo...
متن کاملذخیره در منابع من
با ذخیره ی این منبع در منابع من، دسترسی به آن را برای استفاده های بعدی آسان تر کنید
برای دانلود متن کامل این مقاله و بیش از 32 میلیون مقاله دیگر ابتدا ثبت نام کنید
ثبت ناماگر عضو سایت هستید لطفا وارد حساب کاربری خود شوید
ورودعنوان ژورنال:
- J. Philosophical Logic
دوره 43 شماره
صفحات -
تاریخ انتشار 2014