, Volume 40, Issue 1, pp 99–119 | Cite as

Incompatibility Semantics from Agreement

  • Daniele PorelloEmail author


In this paper, I discuss the analysis of logic in the pragmatic approach recently proposed by Brandom. I consider different consequence relations, formalized by classical, intuitionistic and linear logic, and I will argue that the formal theory developed by Brandom, even if provides powerful foundational insights on the relationship between logic and discursive practices, cannot account for important reasoning patterns represented by non-monotonic or resource-sensitive inferences. Then, I will present an incompatibility semantics in the framework of linear logic which allow to refine Brandom’s concept of defeasible inference and to account for those non-monotonic and relevant inferences that are expressible in linear logic. Moreover, I will suggest an interpretation of discursive practices based on an abstract notion of agreement on what counts as a reason which is deeply connected with linear logic semantics.


Dialogues Linear logic Analytical pragmatism Actions that count as reasons 


  1. Abramsky, S., & Jagadeesan, R. (1994). Games and full completeness for multiplicative linear logic. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 59(2), 543–574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bellin, G., & Biasi, C. (2004). Towards a logic for pragmatics. Assertions and conjectures. Journal of Logic and Computation, 14(4), 473–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bellin, G., & Dalla Pozza, C. (2002). A pragmatic interpretation of substructural logics. In Reflections on the foundations of mathematics, essays in honor of Solomon Feferman. ASL lecture notes in logic (Vol. 15).Google Scholar
  4. Blass, A. (1992). A game semantics for linear logic. Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, 56, 183–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brandom, R. (2008). Between saying and doing. Towards an analytical pragmatism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dummett, M. (1991). The logical basis of metaphysics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Girard, J.-Y. (1987). Linear logic. Theoretical Computer Science, 50, 1–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Girard, J.-Y. (2006). Le point aveugle, cours de logique, tome 1: vers l’ imperfection. Editions Hermann, collection, Visions des Sciences.Google Scholar
  9. Girard, J.-Y. (2007). Le point aveugle, cours de logique, tome 2: vers la perfection. Editions Hermann, collection, Visions des Sciences.Google Scholar
  10. Girard, J.-Y. (1993). On the unity of logic. Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, 59(3), 201–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kanovich, M.I., Okada, M., & Terui, K. (2006) Intuitionistic phase semantics is almost classical. Mathematical Structures in Computer Science, 16, 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Lorenz, K., & Lorenzen, P. (1978). Dialogische logik. Buchgesellschaft, Darmstadt: Wissenschaftl.Google Scholar
  13. Pietarinen, A.-V. (2003). Logic, language games and ludics. Acta Analytica, 18, 89–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Schellinx, H. (1991). Some syntactical observations on linear logic. Journal of Logic and Computation, 1(4), 537–559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Troelstra, A.S. (1992) Lectures on linear logic. CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
  16. Wittgenstein, L. (1967). Philosophical investigations (3rd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  17. Yetter, D.N. (1990). Quantales and (noncommutative) linear logic. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 55(1), 41–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for Logic, Language & ComputationUniversity of AmsterdamAmsterdamNetherlands

Personalised recommendations