Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-02T23:44:04.723Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

SUPER LIARS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 May 2010

PHILIPPE SCHLENKER
PHILIPPE SCHLENKER*
Affiliation:
Institut Jean-Nicod and New York University
*
*INSTITUT JEAN-NICOD, ECOLE NORMALE SUPÉRIEURE 29, RUE d’ULM 75005 PARIS, DEPARTMENT OF LINGUISTICS, NEW YORK UNIVERSITY, 10 WASHINGTON PLACE, NEW YORK, NY 10003 E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Kripke’s theory of truth offered a trivalent semantics for a language which, like English, contains a truth predicate and means of self-reference; but it did so by severely restricting the expressive power of the logic. In Kripke’s analysis, the Liar (e.g., This very sentence is not true) receives the indeterminate truth value, but this fact cannot be expressed in the language; by contrast, it is straightforward to say in English that the Liar is something other than true. Kripke’s theory also fails to handle the Strengthened Liar, which can be expressed in English as: This very sentence is something other than true. We develop a theory which seeks to overcome these difficulties, and is based on a detailed analysis of some of the linguistic means by which the Strengthened Liar can be expressed in English. In particular, we propose to take literally the quantificational form of the negative expression something other than true. Like other quantifiers, it may have different implicit domain restrictions, which give rise to a variety of negations of different strengths (e.g., something other than true among the values {0, 1}, or among {0, 1, 2}, etc). This analysis naturally leads to a logic with as many truth values as there are ordinals—a conclusion reached independently by Cook (2008a). We develop the theory within a generalization of the Strong Kleene Logic, augmented with negations that each have a nonmonotonic semantics. We show that fixed points can be constructed for our logic, and that it enjoys a limited form of ‘expressive completeness’. Finally, we discuss the relation between our theory and various alternatives, including one in which the word true (rather than negation) is semantically ambiguous, and gives rise to a hierarchy of truth predicates of increasing strength.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Review of Symbolic Logic , Volume 3 , Issue 3 , September 2010 , pp. 374 - 414
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Symbolic Logic 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Burge, T. (1979). Semantical paradox. Journal of Philosophy, 76, 169–198.Google Scholar
Chemla, E. (2009). Presuppositions of quantified sentences: Experimental data. Natural Language Semantics, 17(4), 299–340.Google Scholar
Cook, R. T. (2008a). Embracing revenge: On the indefinite extendibility of language. In Beall, J. C., editor. Revenge of the Liar. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cook, R. T. (2008b). What Is a Truth Value, and How Many Are There? Manuscript, University of Minnesota.Google Scholar
Feferman, S. (1984). Towards useful type-free theories I. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 49, 75–111.Google Scholar
Field, H. (2003a). A revenge-immune solution to the semantic paradoxes. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 32, 139–177.Google Scholar
Field, H. (2003b). The semantic paradoxes and the paradoxes of vagueness. In Beall, J. C., editor. Liars and Heaps: New Essays on Paradox. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Field, H. (2007). Solving the paradoxes, escaping revenge. In Beall, J. C., editor. Revenge of the Liar. Oxford University Press, pp. 78–144.Google Scholar
Field, H. (2008). Saving Truth from Paradox. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fitch, F. (1964). Universal metalanguages for philosophy. Metaphysics, 17(3), 396–402.Google Scholar
Gajewski, J. (2005). Neg-Raising: Polarity and Presupposition. Doctoral Dissertation, MIT: Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Galinon, H. (2006). Comments on Schlenker. Hand-out of a talk given at the 3rd Paris-Amsterdam Logic Meeting of Young Researchers (PALMYR 3), held at Institut Jean-Nicod, Paris on June 28, 2006.Google Scholar
Glanzberg, M. (2001). The liar in context. Philosophical Studies, 103, 217–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glanzberg, M. (2004). A contextual-hierarchical approach to truth and the liar paradox. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 33, 27–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gupta, A., & Martin, R. L. (1984). A fixed point theorem for the weak Kleene valuation scheme. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 13, 131–135.Google Scholar
Horn, L. (1989). A Natural History of Negation. CSLI Publications. Reprinted in 2001.Google Scholar
Kadmon, N. (2001). Formal Pragmatics. Blackwell.Google Scholar
Kratzer, A. (1991). Conditionals. In von Stechow, A., and Wunderlich, D., editors. Semantik: ein internationales Handbuch der zeitgenössischen Forschung, pp. 651–656.Google Scholar
Kripke, S. (1975). Outline of a theory of truth. Journal of Philosophy, 72, 690–716.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leitgeb, H. (2005). What truth depends on. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 34, 155–192.Google Scholar
Myhill, J. (1984). Paradoxes. Synthese, 60, 129–143.Google Scholar
Schlenker, P. (2004). Conditionals as definite descriptions: A referential analysis. Research on Language and Computation, 2(3), 417–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schlenker, P. (2007). The elimination of self-reference: Generalized Yablo-series and the theory of truth. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 36(3), 251–307.Google Scholar
von Fintel, K. (2001). Counterfactuals in a dynamic context. In Kenstowicz, M., editor. Ken Hale: A Life in Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 123–152.Google Scholar
Yablo, D. (2003). New grounds for naive truth theory. In Beall, J. C., editor. Liars and Heaps: New Essays on Paradox. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar