, Volume 196, Issue 4, pp 1249–1283 | Cite as

If structured propositions are logical procedures then how are procedures individuated?

  • Marie DužíEmail author
S.I. : Unity of Structured Propositions


This paper deals with two issues. First, it identifies structured propositions with logical procedures. Second, it considers various rigorous definitions of the granularity of procedures, hence also of structured propositions, and comes out in favour of one of them. As for the first point, structured propositions are explicated as algorithmically structured procedures. I show that these procedures are structured wholes that are assigned to expressions as their meanings, and their constituents are sub-procedures occurring in executed mode (as opposed to displayed mode). Moreover, procedures are not mere aggregates of their parts; rather, procedural constituents mutually interact. As for the second point, there is no universal criterion of the structural isomorphism of meanings, hence of co-hyperintensionality, hence of synonymy for every kind of language. The positive result I present is an ordered set of rigorously defined criteria of fine-grained individuation in terms of the structure of procedures. Hence procedural semantics provides a solution to the problem of the granularity of co-hyperintensionality.


Procedural semantics Transparent intensional logic Structured propositions Mereology of structured procedures Unity of propositions synonymy Co-hyperintensionality Procedural isomorphism 



The research reported here in was supported by the Grant Agency of the Czech Republic, Project No. GA15-13277S, Hyperintensional logic for natural language analysis, and by the internal grant agency of VSB-TU Ostrava, Project SGS No. SP2017/133, “Knowledge modelling and its applications in software engineering III”. Versions of this paper were read at the Barcelona Workshop on Reference 9 (BW9): Unity and Individuation of Structured Propositions, Barcelona, 22–24 June 2015. I want to thank Bjørn Jespersen for great comments along the way, and not least two anonymous referees for Synthese.


  1. Anderson, C. A. (1998). Alonzo Church’s contributions to philosophy and intensional logic. Bulletin of Symbolic Logic, 4, 129–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barendregt, H. P. (1997). The impact of the lambda calculus. Bulletin of Symbolic Logic, 3(2), 181–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bennet, K. (2013). Having a part twice over. Australian Journal of Philosophy, 91(1), 83–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bolzano, B. (1837). Wissenschaftslehre. Sulzbach: von Seidel.Google Scholar
  5. Carnap, R. (1947). Meaning and necessity. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Church, A. (1941). The calculi of lambda conversion. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Church, A. (1951). The need for abstract entities. American Academy of Arts and Sciences Proceedings, 80, 100–113.Google Scholar
  8. Church, A. (1954). Intensional isomorphism and identity of belief. Philosophical Studies, 5, 65–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Church, A. (1956). Introduction to mathematical logic. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Church, A. (1993). A revised formulation of the logic of sense and denotation. Alternative (1). Noûs, 27, 141–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cleland, C. E. (2002). On effective procedures. Minds and Machines, 12, 159–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cohen, M. R., & Nagel, E. (1934). An introduction to logic and scientific method. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  13. Cotnoir, A. J. (2013). Strange parts: The metaphysics of non-classical mereologies. Philosophy Compass, 8(9), 834–845.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Duží, M. (2014). A procedural interpretation of the Church-Turing Thesis. In A. Olszewski, B. Brożek, P. Urbańczyk (Eds.), Church’s Thesis: Logic, mind and nature. Copernicus Center Press, Krakow 2013.Google Scholar
  15. Duží, M. (2017a). Logic of dynamic discourse; anaphora resolution. In Proceedings of the 27th international conference on information modelling and knowledge bases-EJC 2017, Thailand.Google Scholar
  16. Duží, M. (2017b). Presuppositions and two kinds of negation. Logique & Analyse, the special issue on How to Say ‘Yes’ and ‘No’ (Vol. 239, pp. 245–263).Google Scholar
  17. Duží, M. (2003). Notional attitudes (on wishing, seeking and finding). ORGANON F, 10(3), 237–260.Google Scholar
  18. Duží, M. (2010). The paradox of inference and the non-triviality of analytic information. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 39(5), 473–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Duží, M. (2012). Extensional logic of hyperintensions. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 7260, 268–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Duží, M. (2014a). Communication in a multi-cultural world. ORGANON F, 21(2), 198–218.Google Scholar
  21. Duží, M. (2014b). Structural isomorphism of meaning and synonymy. Computación y Sistemas, 18(3), 439–453.Google Scholar
  22. Duží, M., & Jespersen, B. (2013). Procedural isomorphism, analytic information, and \(\beta \)-conversion by value. Logic Journal of the IGPL, 21(2), 291–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Duží, M., & Jespersen, B. (2015). Transparent quantification into hyperintensional objectual attitudes. Synthese, 192(3), 635–677.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Duží, M., Jespersen, B., & Materna, P. (2009). ‘\(\pi \)’ in the sky. In G. Primiero & S. Rahman (Eds.), Acts of knowledge: History, philosophy and logic. Essays dedicated to Göran Sundholm. London: College Publications Tribute Series 1.Google Scholar
  25. Duží, M., Jespersen, B., & Materna, P. (2010). Procedural semantics for hyperintensional logic. Foundations and applications of transparent intensional logic. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  26. Duží, M., & Kosterec, M. (2017). A valid rule of \(\beta \)-conversion for the logic of partial functions. ORGANON F, 24(1), 10–36.Google Scholar
  27. Duží, M., Macek, J., & Vích, L. (2014). Procedural isomorphism and synonymy. In M. Dančák & V. Punčochář (Eds.), Logica yearbook 2013 (pp. 15–33). London: College Publications.Google Scholar
  28. Duží, M., & Materna, P. (2017). Validity and applicability of Leibniz’s law of substitution of identicals. In P. Arazim & T. Lavička (Eds.), The logica yearbook 2016 (pp. 17–35). London: College Publications.Google Scholar
  29. Faroldi, F. L. G. (2016). Co-hyperintensionality. Ratio,. Scholar
  30. Ganter, B., & Wille, R. (1999). Formal concept analysis, mathematical foundations. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hanks, P. (2011). Structured propositions as types. Mind, 120(477), 11–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hanks, P. (2015). Propositional content. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Jespersen, B. (2015a). Structured lexical concepts, property modifiers, and transparent intensional logic. Philosophical Studies, 172(2), 321–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Jespersen, B. (2015b). Should propositions proliferate? Thought, 4, 243–251.Google Scholar
  35. Jespersen, B. (2017a). Anatomy of a proposition. Synthese, S.I. Unity of structured propositions, published online August 2017.
  36. Jespersen, B. (2017b). Is predication an act or an operation? In P. Stalmaszczyk (Ed.), Philosophy and logic of predication, studies in philosophy of language and linguistics (Vol. 7, pp. 223–245). Peter Lang GmbH: Frankfurt/Main.Google Scholar
  37. King, J. C. (2014). Structured propositions. In E. N. Zalta (ed.) The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Spring 2014 Edition).
  38. Materna, P. (1998). Concepts and objects (Vol. 63). Helsinki: Acta Philosophica Fennica.Google Scholar
  39. Materna, P. (2004). Conceptual systems. Berlin: Logos.Google Scholar
  40. Mates, B. (1952). Synonymity. In L. Linsky (Ed.), Semantics and the philosophy of language (pp. 111–138). Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
  41. Moschovakis, Y. N. (1994). Sense and denotation as algorithm and value. In J. Väänänen & J. Oikkonen (Eds.), Lecture notes in logic (Vol. 2, pp. 210–249). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  42. Moschovakis, Y. N. (2006). A logical calculus of meaning and synonymy. Linguistics and Philosophy, 29, 27–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Pickel, B. (2017). Are propositions essentially representational? Pacific Philosophical Quartelly,. Scholar
  44. Pickel, B., & Rabern, B. (2016). The antinomy of the variable: A Tarskian resolution. Journal of Philosophy, 113(3), 137–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Richard, M. (2001). Analysis, synonymy and sense. In: A. Anderson, M. Zelëny (Eds.), Logic, meaning and computation, essays in memory of Alonzo Church. Synthese Library 305 (vol. III, pp. 545–572).Google Scholar
  46. Russell, B. (1903). The principles of mathematics. New York: Norton paperback edition 1996. Norton & Company.Google Scholar
  47. Salmon, N. (2010). Lambda in sentences with designators: An ode to complex predication. Journal of Philosophy, 107, 445–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Soames, S. (2012). What is meaning?. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Soames, S. (2014). A cognitive theory of propositions. In J. C. King, S. Soames, & J. Speaks (Eds.), New thinking about propositions (6th ed., pp. 91–125). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Tichý, P. (2004). Collected papers in logic and philosophy. In V. Svoboda, B. Jespersen, C. Cheyne (Eds.), Prague: Filosofia, Czech Academy of Sciences and Dunedin: University of Otago Press.Google Scholar
  51. Tichý, P. (1988). The foundations of Frege’s logic. Berlin: De Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Tichý, P. (1995). Constructions as the subject matter of mathematics. In W. De Pauli-Schimanovich, et al. (Eds.), The foundational debate (pp. 175–185). Amsterdam: Kluwer Academic Publisher. (Reprinted in Tichý (2004), pp. 873–885).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. van Lambalgen, M., & Hamm, F. (2004). Moschovakis’ notion of meaning as applied to linguistics. In M. Baaz, S. Friedman, J. Krajicek (Eds.), Logic Colloquium’01. Digital Academic Repository. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam. Accessed 13 September 2017.
  54. Westerhoff, J. (2005). Logical relations between pictures. Journal of Philosophy, 102, 603–623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceVSB-Technical University of OstravaOstravaCzech Republic

Personalised recommendations