, Volume 5, Issue 3, pp 207–212 | Cite as

A counterexample to Tarski-type truth-definitions as applied to natural languages

  • Jaakko Hintikka


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [1]
    Noam Chomsky,Aspects of the Theory of Syntax (The M.I.T. Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1965)Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    Donald Davidson, ‘Truth and Meaning’,Synthese, 17 (1967), pp. 304–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. [3]
    Donald Davidson, ‘True to the Facts’,Journal of Philosophy, 66 (1969), pp. 748–764.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    Donald Davidson, ‘In Defense of Convention T’, In Hugues Leblanc, editor,Truth, Syntax, and Modality (North-Holland Publishing Co., Amsterdam, 1973), pp. 76–86.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    Michael Dummett,Frege: Philosophy of Language (Duckworth, London, 1973).Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    Edward S. Klima, ‘Negation in English’, in Jerry A. Fodor and Jerrold J. Katz, Editors,The Structure of Language (Prentice-Hall, Inc.., Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1965), pp. 246–323, especially pp. 276–280.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    Richard Montague, ‘The Proper Treatment of Quantification in Ordinary English’, in Jaakko Hintikka, Julius M.E. Moravcsik and Patrick Suppes, editors,Approaches to Natural Language (D. Reidel Publishing Co., Dordrecht and Boston, 1973), pp. 221–242.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    Alfred Tarski, ‘Der Wahrheitsbegriff in den formalisierten Sprachen’,Studia Philosophica, 1 (1936), pp. 261–405; translated as ‘The Concept of Truth in Formalized Languages’, Ch. 8 of Alfred Tarski,Logic, Semantics, Metamathematics (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1956), pp. 152–278.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Bar-Ilan University 1975

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jaakko Hintikka
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Stanford UniversityStanfordUSA
  2. 2.The Academy of FinlandHelsinkiFinland

Personalised recommendations