Journal of Logic, Language and Information

, Volume 10, Issue 1, pp 87–114 | Cite as

Did Frege Believe Frege's Principle?

  • Francis Jeffry Pelletier
Article

Abstract

In this essay I will consider two theses that are associated with Frege,and will investigate the extent to which Frege “really” believed them.Much of what I have to say will come as no surprise to scholars of thehistorical Frege. But Frege is not only a historical figure; he alsooccupies a site on the philosophical landscape that has allowed hisdoctrines to seep into the subconscious water table. And scholars in a widevariety of different scholarly establishments then sip from thesedoctrines. I believe that some Frege-interested philosophers at various ofthese establishments might find my conclusions surprising.

Some of these philosophical establishments have arisen from an educationalmilieu in which Frege is associated with some specific doctrine at theexpense of not even being aware of other milieux where other specificdoctrines are given sole prominence. The two theses which I will discussillustrate this point. Each of them is called “Frege's Principle,” but byphilosophers from different milieux. By calling them “milieux” I do not want to convey the idea that they are each located at some specificsocio-politico-geographico-temporal location. Rather, it is a matter oftheir each being located at different places on the intellectuallandscape. For this reason one might (and I sometimes will) call them“(interpretative) traditions.”

Bedeutung compositionality Context Principle Contextuality Holism Sinn 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Angelelli, I., 1967, Gottlob Frege and Traditional Philosophy, Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
  2. Angelelli, I., 1982, “Frege's Notion of 'Bedeutung',” pp. 735–753 in Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science VI, J. Cohen et al., eds., Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
  3. Baker, G. and Hacker, P., 1980, Wittgenstein: Understanding and Meaning, Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  4. Baker, G. and Hacker, P., 1984a, Frege: Logical Excavations, Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  5. Baker, G. and Hacker, P., 1984b, Language, Sense & Nonsense, Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  6. Beaney, M., 1996, Frege: Making Sense, London: Duckworth.Google Scholar
  7. Bell, D., 1981, “The place of the Grundlagen in Frege's development,” Philosophical Quarterly 31, 209–224.Google Scholar
  8. Burge, T., 1986, “Frege on truth,” pp. 97–154 in Frege Synthesized, L. Haaparanta and J. Hintikka, J., eds., Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  9. Carl, W., 1994, Frege's Theory of Sense and Reference, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Carnap, R., 1947, Meaning and Necessity, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  11. Chierchia, G. and McConnell-Ginet, S., 1990, Meaning and Grammar, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  12. Church, A., 1956, Introduction to Mathematical Logic I, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Cresswell, M., 1973, Logics and Languages, London: Methuen.Google Scholar
  14. Currie, G., 1982, Frege: An Introduction to his Philosophy, Totowa, NJ: Barnes & Noble.Google Scholar
  15. Davidson, D., 1965, “Theories of meaning and learnable languages,” pp. 383–394 in Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science, Y. Bar-Hillel, ed., Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
  16. Davidson, D., 1967, “Truth and meaning,” Synthese 17, 304–323.Google Scholar
  17. Dudman, V., 1976, “Bedeutung for predicates,” pp. 71–84 in Studien zu Frege III: Logik und Semantik, M. Schirn, ed., Stuttgart: Frommann-Holzboog.Google Scholar
  18. Dummett, M., 1981a, Frege: Philosophy of Language, 2nd edition, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Dummett, M., 1981b, The Interpretation of Frege's Philosophy, London: Duckworth.Google Scholar
  20. Fodor, J. and LePore, E., 1992, Holism: A Shopper's Guide, Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  21. Frege, G., 1884, Grundlagen der Arithmetik, translated as The Foundations of Arithmetic by J. Austin, Oxford: Blackwell, 1950 (page references to this translation).Google Scholar
  22. Frege, G., 1891a, “Funktion und Begriff” (an address to the Jenaische Gesellschaft für Medizin und Naturwissenschaft), published at Jena, translated as “Function and Concept,” pp. 21–41 in Translations from the Philosophical Writings of Gottlob Frege, P. Geach, and M. Black, eds., Oxford: Blackwell, 1952 (page references to this translation).Google Scholar
  23. Frege, G., 1891b, “On the law of inertia,” Zeitschrift für Philosophie und philosophische Kritik 98, translated and reprinted as pp. 123–136 in Frege: Collected Papers on Mathematics, Logic, and Philosophy, B. McGuinness, ed., Oxford: Blackwell 1984.Google Scholar
  24. Frege, G., 1892a, “Ñber Sinn und Bedeutung,” Zeitschrift für Philosophie und philosophische Kritik 100, 25–50, translated as “On sense and reference,” pp. 56–78 in Translations from the Philosophical Writings of Gottlob Frege, P. Geach and M. Black, eds., Oxford: Blackwell, 1952 (page references to this translation).Google Scholar
  25. Frege, G., 1892b, “Ñber Begriff und Gegenstand,” Vierteljahrsschrift für wissenschaftliche Philosophie 16, 192–205, translated as “On concept and object,” pp. 42–55 in Translations from the Philosophical Writings of Gottlob Frege, P. Geach and M. Black, eds., Oxford: Blackwell, 1952 (page references to this translation).Google Scholar
  26. Frege, G., 1893, Grundgesetze der Arithmetik, begriffsschriftlich abgeleitet (Band I), Verlag Hermann Pohle, Jena. Portions edited and translated by M. Furth as The Basic Laws of Arithmetic, Exposition of the System, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1964. (Page references to this translation.)Google Scholar
  27. Frege, G., 1914a, “Logic in mathematics,” pp. 203–252 in Gottlob Frege: Posthumous Writings, H. Hermes et al., eds. (translated by P. Long & R.White), Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  28. Frege, G., 1914b, “Correspondence with Philip Jourdain,” pp. 72–84 in Gottlob: The Philosophical and Mathematical Correspondence, B. McGuinness and K. Kaal, eds., Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  29. Frege, G., 1919, “Notes for Ludwig Darmstaedter,” pp. 253–257 in Gottlob Frege: Posthumous Writings, H. Hermes et al., eds. (translated by P. Long & R. White), Chicago, IL: University Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  30. Frege, G., 1923, “Compound thoughts,” trans. R. Stoothoff in Mind 72, 1963, 1–17.Google Scholar
  31. Gazdar, G., Klein, E., Pullum, G., and Sag, I., 1985, Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar, Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  32. Haaparanta, L., 1985a, “Frege's doctrine of being,” Acta Philosophica Fennica 39, 1–182.Google Scholar
  33. Haaparanta, L., 1985b, “Frege's context principle,” Communication and Cognition 18, 81–94.Google Scholar
  34. Hale, B., 1997, “Grundlagen §64,” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 97, 243–261.Google Scholar
  35. Haugeland, J., 1979, “Understanding natural language,” Journal of Philosophy 76, 619–632.Google Scholar
  36. Hausser, R., 1984, Surface Compositional Grammar, München: Wilhelm Fink Verlag.Google Scholar
  37. Hintikka, J., 1980, “Theories of truth and learnable languages,” pp. 37–57 in Philosophy and Grammar, S. Kanger and S. Öhman, eds., Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
  38. Hintikka, J., 1984, “A hundred years later: The rise and fall of Frege's influence in language theory,” Synthese 59, 27–49.Google Scholar
  39. Hintikka, J. and Sandu, G., 1994, “Uses and misuses of Frege's ideas,” The Monist 77, 278–293.Google Scholar
  40. Hugly, P. and Sayward, C., 1995, “What's so special about sentences?,” Communication and Cognition 28, 409–426.Google Scholar
  41. Janssen, T., 1986, “Foundations and applications of Montague Grammar,” unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Mathematisch Centrum, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  42. Janssen, T., 1997, “Compositionality,” pp. 417–473 in Handbook of Logic and Language, J. van Benthem and A. ter Meulen, eds., Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  43. Kamp, H. and Partee, B., 1995, “Prototype theory and compositionality,” Cognition 57, 129–191.Google Scholar
  44. Kenny, A., 1995, Frege, London: Penguin.Google Scholar
  45. Kluge, E.-H., 1980, The Metaphysics of Gottlob Frege, The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar
  46. Lahav, R., 1989, “Against compositionality: The case of adjectives,” Philosophical Studies 57, 261–279.Google Scholar
  47. Montague, R., 1970a, “English as a formal language,” reprinted as pp. 188–221 in Formal Philosophy: Selected Papers of Richard Montague, R. Thomason, ed., New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Montague, R., 1970b, “Pragmatics and intensional logic,” reprinted as pp. 119–147 in Formal Philosophy: Selected Papers of Richard Montague, R. Thomason, ed., New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Partee, B., 1975, “Comments on C. J. Fillmore's and N. Chomsky's papers,” pp. 197–209 in The Scope of American Linguistics, R. Austerlitz, ed., Lisse: Peter de Ridder Press.Google Scholar
  50. Partee, B., 1984, “Compositionality,” pp. 281–311 in Varieties of Formal Semantics, F. Landman and F. Veltman, eds., Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
  51. Partee, B., 1995, “Lexical semantics and compositionality,” pp. 311–360 in An Invitation to Cognitive Science, Volume 1, D. Osherson, ed., Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  52. Partee, B., ter Meulen, A., and Wall, R., 1990, Mathematical Methods in Linguistics, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  53. Pelletier, F. J., 1994, “The principle of semantic compositionality,” Topoi 13, 11–24.Google Scholar
  54. Peregrin, J., 1994, “Interpreting formal logic,” Erkenntnis 40, 5–20.Google Scholar
  55. Popper, K., 1976, Unended Quest: An Intellectual Autobiography, London: Fontana.Google Scholar
  56. Quine, W., 1951, “Two dogmas of empiricism,” Philosophical Review 60, 20–43. (Page references to the reprinted version: pp. 20–46 in From a Logical Point of View, W. Quine, ed., Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1964.)Google Scholar
  57. Quine,W., 1969, “Epistemology naturalized,” pp. 69–90 in Ontological Relativity and Other Essays, W. Quine, ed., New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  58. Resnik, M., 1967, “The context principle in Frege's philosophy,” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 27, 356–365.Google Scholar
  59. Resnik, M., 1976, “Frege's context principle revisited,” pp. 35–49 in Studien zu Frege III: Logik und Semantik, M. Schirn, ed., Stuttgart: Frommann-Holzboog.Google Scholar
  60. Resnik, M., 1981, “Frege and analytic philosophy: Facts and speculations,” Midwest Studies in Philosophy 6, 83–104.Google Scholar
  61. Salmon, N., 1994, “Sense and reference: Introduction,” pp. 99–129 in Basic Topics in the Philosophy of Language, M. Harnish, ed., Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  62. Schiffer, S., 1987, Remnants of Meaning, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  63. Shwayder, D., 1976, “On the determination of reference by sense,” pp. 85–95 in Studien zu Frege III: Logik und Semantik, M. Schirn, ed., Stuttgart: Frommann-Holzboog.Google Scholar
  64. Skorupski, J., 1984, “Dummett's Frege,” pp. 227–243 in Frege: Tradition & Influence, C. Wright, ed., Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  65. Sluga, H., 1977, “Frege's alleged realism,” Inquiry 20, 227–242.Google Scholar
  66. Sluga, H., 1980, Gottlob Frege, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  67. Sluga, H., 1987, “Frege against the Booleans,” Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 28, 80–98.Google Scholar
  68. Sluga, H., 1993, “Volume introduction,” pp. xi-xiii in The Philosophy of Frege: Vol. 3, Meaning and Ontology in Frege's Philosophy, H. Sluga, ed., New York: Garland Publishers.Google Scholar
  69. Thomason, R., ed., 1974a, Formal Philosophy: Selected Papers of Richard Montague, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  70. Thomason, R., 1974b, “Introduction,” pp. 1–69 in Formal Philosophy: Selected Papers of Richard Montague, R. Thomason, ed., New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  71. Tichy, P., 1988, The Foundations of Frege's Logic, Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  72. Tugendhat, E., 1970, “The meaning of 'Bedeutung' in Frege,” Analysis 30, 177–189.Google Scholar
  73. Wright, C., 1983, Frege's Conception of Numbers as Objects, Scots Philosophical Monographs, Aberdeen: Aberdeen University Press.Google Scholar
  74. Zadeh, L., 1983, “A fuzzy-set-theoretic approach to the compositionality of meaning: Propositions, dispositions and canonical forms,” Journal of Semantics 2, 253–272.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Francis Jeffry Pelletier
    • 1
  1. 1.Departments of Philosophy and Computing ScienceUniversity of AlbertaEdmontonCanada

Personalised recommendations