Logica Universalis

, Volume 9, Issue 1, pp 121–127 | Cite as

On a Distinction of Two Facets of Meaning and its Role in Proof-theoretic Semantics

  • Nissim FrancezEmail author


I show that in the context of proof-theoretic semantics, Dummett’s distinction between the assertoric meaning of a sentence (it’s meaning when viewed as “stand alone”) and its ingredient sense (its meaning when viewed as a constituent of an embedding sentence) can be seen as a distinction between two proof-theoretic meanings of a sentence:
  1. 1.

    Meaning as a conclusion of an introduction rule in a meaning-conferring natural-deduction proof system.

  1. 2.

    Meaning as a premise of an introduction rule in a meaning-conferring natural-deduction proof system.

The effect of this distinction on compositionality of proof-theoretic meaning is discussed.


Proof-theoretic semantics assertoric contents ingredient sense meaning as premise meaning as conclusion compositionality 

Mathematics Subject Classification

Primary 03F03 Secondary 03B22 03A02 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Dummett, M.: The Logical Basis of Metaphysics. Harvard University Press, Cambridge (1993) (paperback). Hard copy 1991Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dummett, M.: The Nature and Future of Philosophy. Columbia University Press, New York (2010)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Fjellstad, A.: How a semantics for tonk should be. Rev. Symb. Log. (2015). doi: 10.1017/S1755020314000513
  4. 4.
    Francez, N.: Views of proof-theoretic semantics: reified proof-theoretic meanings. J. Comput. Log. (2014). doi: 10.1093/logcom/exu035. Special issue in honour of Roy Dyckhoff
  5. 5.
    Francez, N.: On the notion of canonical derivations from open assumptions and its role in proof-theoretic semantics. Rev. Symb. Log. (2015) (to appear)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Francez N., Ben-Avi G.: Proof-theoretic semantic values for logical operators. Rev Symb. Log. 4(3), 337–485 (2011)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Francez N., Dyckhoff R.: Proof-theoretic semantics for a natural language fragment. Linguist. Philos. 33(6), 447–477 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Francez N., Dyckhoff R., Ben-Avi G.: Proof-theoretic semantics for subsentential phrases. Stud. Log. 94, 381–401 (2010)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Humberstone, L.: Heterogeneous logic. Erkenntnis 29, 395–435 (1988)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Prior, A.N.: The runabout inference-ticket. Analysis 21, 38–39 (1960)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Raibern, B.: Against the identification of assertoric content with compositional value. Synthese 189(1), 75–96 (2012). doi: 10.1007/s11229-012-0096-9
  12. 12.
    Schroeder-Heister, P.: Proof-theoretic semantics. In: Zalta, E.N. (ed.) Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy (SEP), The Metaphysics Research Lab, Center for the Study of Language and Information. Stanford University, Stanford (2011)
  13. 13.
    Tsohatzidis, S.L.: The distance between ’here’ and ’where I am’. J. Philos. Res. (2013) (forthcoming)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Basel 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Computer Science DepartmentTechnion-IITHaifaIIsrael

Personalised recommendations