Journal of Logic, Language and Information

, Volume 4, Issue 4, pp 301–315 | Cite as

Interpreted logical forms as objects of the attitudes

  • M. Dusche


Two arguments favoring propositionalist accounts of attitude sentences are being revisited: the Church-Langford translation argument and Thomason's argument against quotational theories of indirect discourse. None of them proves to be decisive, thus leaving the option of searching for a developed quotational alternative. Such an alternative is found in an interpreted logical form theory of attitude ascription. The theory differentiates elegantly among different attitudes but it fails to account for logical dependencies among them. It is argued, however, that the concept of logical consequence does not well apply to dependencies among belief sentences and that the requirement to account for logical relations among such sentences should be relaxed.

Key words

Translation argument quotational theories of indirect discourse interpreted logical forms logic of propositional attitudes 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Burge, T., 1978, “Self-reference and translation,” pp. 137–153 inMeaning and Translation, F. Guenthner and M. Guenthner-Ratner, eds., London: Duckworth.Google Scholar
  2. Church, A., 1950, “On Carnap's analysis of statements of assertion and belief,”Analysis 10, 97–99.Google Scholar
  3. Cresswell, M., 1985,Structured Meanings, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  4. Harman, G., 1972, “Logical form,”Foundations of Language 9, 38–65.Google Scholar
  5. Hart, W. D., 1970, “On self-reference,”Philosophical Review 79.Google Scholar
  6. Higginbotham, J., 1986, “Davidson's program in semantics,” pp. 29–48 inTruth and Interpretation, Perspectives on the Philosophy of Donald Davidson, E. LePore, ed., Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  7. Higginbotham, J., 1991, “Belief and logical form,”Mind and Language 6, 344–369.Google Scholar
  8. Koons, R. C., 1992,Paradoxes of Belief and Strategic Rationality, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Langford, C. H., 1937,The Journal of Symbolic Logic 2, 53–54.Google Scholar
  10. Larson, R. K. and P. Ludlow, 1993, “Interpreted logical forms,”Synthese 95, 305–355.Google Scholar
  11. Lewis, D., 1983,Philosophical Papers, Vol. I, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Montague, R., 1974, “Syntactic treatments of modality, with corollaries on reflexion principles and finite axiomatizability,” pp. 286–302 inFormal Philosophy, R. H. Thomason, ed., New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Putnam, H., 1954, “Synonymity, and the analysis of belief sentences,”Analysis 14, 114–122.Google Scholar
  14. Richard, M., 1990,Propositional Attitudes, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Segal, G., 1989, “A preference for sense and reference,”The Journal of Philosophy 86, 73–89.Google Scholar
  16. Soames, S., 1988, “Direct reference, propositional attitudes, and semantic content,” pp. 197–239 inPropositions and Attitudes, N. Salmon and S. Soames, eds., Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Tarski, A., 1935, “Der Wahrheitsbegriff in den formalisierten Sprachen,”Studia Philosophica Commentarii Societatis Phiosohicae Polonorum 1, 261–405 (reprinted inLogik-Texte, K. Berka and L. Kreiser, eds., Berlin: Akademie Verlag).Google Scholar
  18. Thomason, R. H., 1977, “Indirect discourse is not quotational,”Monist 60, 340–354.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. Dusche
    • 1
  1. 1.Philosophische FakultätUniversität TübingenTübingen-LustnauGermany

Personalised recommendations