Studia Logica

, Volume 101, Issue 3, pp 547–581 | Cite as

A New Logic of Technical Malfunction



Aim of the paper is to present a new logic of technical malfunction. The need for this logic is motivated by a simple-sounding philosophical question: Is a malfunctioning corkscrew, which fails to uncork bottles, nonetheless a corkscrew? Or in general terms, is a malfunctioning F, which fails to do what Fs do, nonetheless an F? We argue that ‘malfunctioning’ denotes the modifier Malfunctioning rather than a property, and that the answer depends on whether Malfunctioning is subsective or privative. If subsective, a malfunctioning F is an F; if privative, a malfunctioning F is not an F. An intensional logic is required to raise and answer the question, because modifiers operate directly on properties and not on sets or individuals. This new logic provides the formal tools to reason about technical malfunction by means of a logical analysis of the sentence “a is a malfunctioning F”.


Logic of malfunction Modification Simple type theory Transparent intensional logic Philosophy of technology Artefact Functioning as Intensional essentialism 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Bolinger D.: Adjectives in English: attribution and predication. Lingua 18, 1–34 (1967)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Carrara M., Vermaas P.: The fine-grained metaphysics of artefactual and biological functional kinds. Synthese 169, 125–143 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Carrara, M. and B. Jespersen (ms.), Double privation, in submission.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Clark R.: Concerning the logic of predicate modifiers. Noûs 4, 311–335 (1970)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cummins R.: Functional analysis. Journal of Philosophy 72, 741–765 (1975)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Davies P. S.: The nature of natural norms: why selected functions are systemic capacity functions. Noûs 34, 85–107 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dipert R.R.: Artifacts, Art Works, and Agency. Temple University Press, Philadelphia (1993)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Duži, M. and B. Jespersen (ms. 1), Transparent quantification into hyperpropositional contexts de re, Logique et Analyse, forthcoming.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Duži, M. and B. Jespersen (ms. 2), Transparent quantification into hyperpropositional contexts de dicto, in submission.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fine K.: Essence and modality. Philosophical Perspectives 8, 1–16 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Franssen, M. and B. Jespersen, From nut-cracking to assisted driving: stratified instrumental systems and the modeling of complexity, in R. Robins (ed.), Engineering Systems: Achievements and Challenges, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 2009, pp. 1–11.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Griffiths P.E.: Functional analysis and proper functions. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 44, 409–422 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Heim I., Kratzer A.: Semantics in Generative Grammar. Blackwell, Oxford (1998)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jespersen B.: Explicit intensionalization, anti-actualism, and why Smith’s murderer might not have murdered Smith. Dialectica 59, 285–314 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jespersen B.: Predication and extensionalization. Journal of Philosophical Logic 37, 479–499 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jespersen, B., From (AB)a infer A * a, in M. Peliš (ed.), The Logica Yearbook 2009, College Publications, London, 2010, pp. 97–108.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Jespersen B.: How hyper are hyperpropositions?. Language and Linguistics Compass 4, 96–106 (2010a)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Jespersen, B., Hyperintensions and procedural isomorphism: Alternative (1/2), in T. Czarnecki, K. Kijania-Placek, O. Poller, and J. Woleński (eds.), The Analytical Way. Proceedings of the 6th European Congress of Analytic Philosophy, College Publications, London, 2010b, pp. 299–320.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Jespersen, B. (ms.1) Left subsectivity, in submission.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Jespersen, B., Recent work on structured meaning and propositional unity, Philosophy Compass, forthcoming.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Jespersen B., Carrara M.: Two conceptions of technical malfunction. Theoria 77, 117–138 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Jespersen B., Materna P.: Are wooden tables necessarily wooden?. Acta Analytica 17, 115–150 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Jespersen, B., and G. Primiero (ms.), Lecture Notes in Computer Science, forthcomingGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kamp, H., Two theories about adjectives, in E. L. Keenan (ed.), Formal Semantics of Natural Language, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1975, pp. 123–155.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kamp H., Partee B.: Prototype theory and compositionality. Cognition 57, 129–191 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kroes, P., Technical Artefacts: Creations of Mind and Matter, Springer, forthcoming.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Millikan R.: Wings, spoons, pills and quills: a pluralist theory of function. Journal of Philosophy 96, 192–206 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    McLaughlin P.: What Functions Explain: Functional Explanation and Self-Reproducing Systems. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2001)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Montague, R., English as a formal language, in B. Visentini et al. (eds.), Linguaggi nella societá e nella tecnica, Milan, 1970, pp. 189–224. Reprinted in: R. H. Thomasson (ed.), Formal Philosophy, Yale University Press, New Haven, London, 1974.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Muskens, R., Meaning and Partiality, CSLI and FOLLI, Stanford, 1995.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Muskens R.: Sense and the computation of reference. Linguistics and Philosophy 28, 473–504 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Neander K.: Functions as selected effects: the conceptual analyst’s defense. Philosophy of Science 58, 168–184 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Partee, B., Privative adjectives: subsective plus coercion, in R. Bäuerle, U. Reyle, and T. E. Zimmermann (eds.), Presupposition and Discourse, Elsevier, Amsterdam, 2001.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Preston B.: Why is a wing like a spoon? A pluralist theory of function. Journal of Philosophy 95, 215–254 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Primiero G., Jespersen B.: Two kinds of procedural semantics for privative modification. Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 6284, 252–271 (2010)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Sloman S.A., Malt B.C.: Artifacts are not ascribed essences, nor are they treated as belonging to kinds. Language and Cognitive Processes 18, 563–582 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Tichý, P., Smysl a procedura, Filosofický časopis 16:222–232, 1968. Reprinted as Sense and Procedure, [44], pp. 79–92.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Tichý, P., Intension in terms of Turing machines, Studia Logica 26:7–25, 1969. Reprinted in [44], pp. 95–109.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Tichý, P., An approach to intensional analysis, Noûs 5:273–297, 1971. Reprinted in [44], pp. 113–137.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Tichý, P., Two kinds of intensional logic, Epistemologia 1:143–164, 1978. Reprinted in [44], pp. 307–364.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Tichý, P., Existence and God, Journal of Philosophy 76:403–420, 1979. Reprinted in [44], pp. 355–372.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Tichý, P., Indiscernibility of identicals, Studia Logica 45:251–273, 1986. Reprinted in [44], pp. 649–671.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Tichý P.: The Foundations of Frege’s Logic. DeGruyter, Berlin (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Tichý, P., in V. Svoboda, B. Jespersen, and C. Cheyne (eds.), Collected Papers in Logic and Philosophy, Filosofia, Czech Academy of Science/University of Otago Press, Prague/Dunedin, 2004.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Wiggins D.: Sameness and Substance Renewed. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of LogicCzech Academy of SciencesPragueCzech Republic
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceVŠB-Technical University of OstravaPrague, OstravaCzech Republic
  3. 3.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of PaduaPadovaItaly

Personalised recommendations