Advertisement

Journal of Philosophical Logic

, Volume 40, Issue 3, pp 397–420 | Cite as

Gnosis

  • Marcus Kracht
Article

Abstract

The transition from form to meaning is not neatly layered: there is no point where form ends and content sets in. Rather, there is an almost continuous process that converts form into meaning. That process cannot always take a straight line. Very often we hit barriers in our mind, due to the inability to understand the exact content of the sentence just heard. The standard division between formula and interpretation (or value) should therefore be given up when talking about the process of understanding. Interestingly, when we do this it turns out that there are ‘easy’ formulae, those we can understand without further help, and ‘difficult’ ones, which we cannot.

Keywords

Logic Dynamic semantics Judgement 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Barsalou, L. W. (2008). Grounded cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 617–645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Brentano, F. (1933). Kategorienlehre. Hamburg: Felix Meiner Verlag.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Frege, G. (1983). Logik in der Mathematik. In H. Hermes, F. Kambartel, & F. Kaulbach (Eds.), Gottlob Frege: Nachgelassene Schriften (2nd ed.). Felix Meiner Verlag.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gaerdenfors, P. (1988). Knowledge in Flux. MIT Press.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gillies, A. (2004). Epistemic conditionals and conditional epistemics. Nôus, 38, 585–615.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Groenendijk, J., & Stokhof, M. (1991). Dynamic predicate logic. Linguistics and Philosophy, 14, 39–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hintikka, J. (1962). Knowledge and belief. A n introduction into the logic of the two notions. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Husserl, E. (1975). V. (Fünfte) Logische Untersuchung. Hamburg: Felix Meiner Verlag.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kearns, J. T. (1997). Propositional logic of supposition and assertion. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, 38, 325–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    King, J. C. (2007). The nature and structure of content. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kracht, M. (1990). Traditional linguistics can solve logical puzzles. Preprint 12/90 of the Gruppe Logik, Wissenstheorie und Information, FU Berlin.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kracht, M. (1992). Assertivity, theme and presupposition. Preprint 19/92 of the Gruppe Logik, Wissenstheorie und Information, FU Berlin.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kracht, M. (2010). The inner dialog: Pragmatics for one person. In K. Robering, & S. Bab (Eds.), Judgements and propositions. Logische Philosophie (number 21). Logos Verlag.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Moschovakis, Y. (1994). Sense and denotation as algorithm and value. In J. Oikkonen, & J. Väänänen (Eds.), Proceedings of the ASL meeting 1990, Helsinki. Lecture Notes in Logic (number 2, pp. 210–249). Berlin and Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Putnam, H. (1975). The meaning of ‘meaning’. In Mind, language and reality (pp. 215–271). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rautenberg, W. (1979). Klassische und nichtklassische Aussagenlogik. Braunschweig/Wiesbaden: Vieweg Verlag.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Vallduví, E. (1990). The information component. PhD thesis, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    van Lambalgen, M., & Hamm, F. (2005). The proper treatment of events. In Explorations in Semantics (number 4). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Veltman, F. (1985). Logics for conditionals. PhD thesis, Department of Philosophy, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Vermeulen, K. (2000). Text structure and proof structure. Journal of Logic, Language and Information, 273–311.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Zemb, J. (1978). Vergleichende Grammatik Französisch-Deutsch. Comparaison de deux systèmes (Vol. 1). Mannheim: Bibliographisches Institut.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Fakultät Linguistik und LiteraturwissenschaftUniversität BielefeldBielefeldGermany

Personalised recommendations