Abstract
This essay is offered in the spirit of interdisciplinary goodwill that prevailed during the Jerusalem meetings. It is not intended for specialists in the formal approach, though it will certainly stand in need of their corrections and comments; it is addressed rather to others who study language and philosophical problems concerning language — linguists, psycholinguists, ‘ordinary-language’ philosophers, etc. I am prompted to express the thoughts that follow, first of all, because the non-specialist already has available to him some general accounts of the nature of the formal approach that claim to show its ultimate fruitlessness for the study of natural language.1 I think these accounts are fundamentally wrong, and I hope to show this. I ain motivated, secondly, by the belief that some recent developments in the formal approach could be extremely suggestive to those who adopt other approaches. Much of what has been written on these developments is difficult to follow, and I propose to say something about some of them later in reasonably non-technical language.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Bibliography
Ajdukiewicz, K.: 1936, Der logistiche Antirationaüsmus in Polen, Actes du 8 e Congris International de Philosophie, Paris.
Anderson, A. and Belnap, N.: 1962, The Pure Calculus of Entailment, Journal of Symbolic Logic 27.
Bar-Hillcl, Y.: 1954, ‘Indexical Expressions’, Mind 63.
Bar-Hillcl, Y.: 1970, Aspects of Language Amsterdam and Jerusalem.
Carnap, R.: 1959, “The Elimination of Metaphysics through the Logical Analysis of Language” in A. Aycr (cd.), Logical Positlcism, Glcncoc, 111.
6] Carnap, R.: 1942, Introduction to Semantics, Cambridge, Mass.
Carnap, R.: 1937, Logical Syntax of Language London and New York.
Carnap. R.: 1963, ‘Reply to Strawson’ in P. A. Schillp (ed.), The Philosophy of Rudolf Carnap, LaSalle. Illinois and London.
Caton, C: 1967. ‘Artificial and Natural Languages’ in P. Edwards (ed.). The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, New York and London.
Davidson, D.: 1969. ‘On Saying That’ in D. Davidson and J. Hintikka (eds.). Words and Objections: Essays on the Work of W. V. Quine. Dordrecht.
Grioc, H. P.: 1967, ‘The Causal Theory of Perception’ in Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Suppl. Vol. 35.
Henkin, L.: 1967, ‘Systems. Formal and Models of Formal Systems’ in P. Edwards (ed.). The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, New York and London.
Hintikka, J.: 1969, ‘Epistemic Logic and the Methods of Philosophical Analysis’, in J. Hintikka, Models for Modalities, Dordrecht.
Katz, J.: 1966, Philosophy of Language New York and London.
Katz, J. and Fodor. J.: 1969, ‘The Strutture of a Semantic Theory’ in J. Fodor and J. Katz (eds.), The Structure of/Mnguage, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.
Katz, J. and Fodor, J.: 1962. ‘What’s Wrong with the Philosophy of Language’, Inquiry 5.
Kncale. M. and Kncale, W.: 1962, The Development of Logic Oxford.
Lukasiewicz, J.: 1961. “Logistyka i filosofia” reprinted in a volume of Lukasiewicz selected papers, 7. zagadnien logiki ifilozofii. Pisma Wybrane, Warsaw.
Martin, R. L. (ed.): 1970, The Paradox of the Liar New Haven and London.
Montague, R.: 1969, ‘On the Nature of Certain Philosophical Entities’. The Monist 53.
Montague, R.: 1968, ‘Pragmatics’ in R. Klibansky (ed.), Contemporary Philosophy, vol. 1, Milan.
Most cm-ski, A.: Thirty Years of Foundational Studies: Lectures on the Development of Mathematical Logic and the Study of the Foundations of Mathematics in 1930–1964, Acta Philosophica Fennica, Fasc. 17 (1965); Oxford. 1966.
Popper, K.: 1963. Conjectures and Refutations London.
Quine, W. V. V.:“Two Dogmas of Empiricism”, Philosophical Review 60 (1951), reprinted in Quine, From a Logical Point of View, Cambridge, Mass.. 1953 and 1961.
Quine, W. V.: 1960. Word and Object New York.
Scott. D.: 1970. Advice on Modal Logic in K. Lambert (ed.), Philosophical Prot Icms in Logic: Some Recent Developments, Dordrecht.
Skolimowski, H.: 1967, Polish Analytical Philosophy: A Survey and a Comparison with British Analytical Philosophy New York.
Straw-son, P. F.: 1963, ‘Catnap’s Views on Constructed Systems versus Natural Languages in Analytic Philosophy’ in P. A. Schillp (ed.), The Philosophy of Rudolf Carnap, La Salle, Illinois and London.
Tarski, A.: 1944. The Semantic Conception of Truth and the Foundations of Semantics in Philosophy and Phenomcnological Research 4.
Tarski, A.: 1954. The Semantic Conception of Truth and the Foundations of Semanticsin Philosophy and Phenomcnological Research 4.
van Fraassen, B.: 1966, ‘Singular Terms, Truth-Value Gaps, and Free Logic,’ Journal of Philosophy 63.
van Fraassen. B.: 1969, ‘Presupposition, Supcrvaluations, and Free Logic’ in K. Lambert (ed.). The Logical Way of Doing Things, New Ilaven.
van Fraassen, B.: 1970, ‘Truth and Paradoxical Consequences’ in R. L. Martin (ed.), The Paradox of the Liar, New Haven and London.
Walker, J.: 1965, A Study of Frege Oxford
Editor information
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1971 D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht-Holland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Martin, R.L. (1971). Some Thoughts on the Formal Approach to the Philosophy of Language. In: Bar-Hillel, Y. (eds) Pragmatics of Natural Languages. Synthese Library, vol 41. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-1713-8_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-1713-8_7
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-90-277-0599-0
Online ISBN: 978-94-010-1713-8
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive