Groundedness, Truth and Dependence

  • Denis Bonnay
  • Floris Tijmen van Vugt
Part of the Logic, Epistemology, and the Unity of Science book series (LEUS, volume 36)


Leitgeb (2005) proposes a new approach to semantic paradoxes, based upon a direct definition of the set of grounded sentences in terms of dependence upon non-semantic state of affairs. In the present paper, we account for the extensional disagreement between this dependence approach and more familiar alethic approaches. In order to do so, we study the behavior of dependence jumps and alethic jumps, and provide an equivalence result for the two approaches.


Dependence Supervaluations Groundedness Jump. 



We would like to thank Serge Bozon, Paul Égré, Hannes Leitgeb, Øystein Linnebo, Philippe de Rouilhan, and Jönne Speck for their insightful comments on earlier versions of this research. We are particularly grateful to Øystein Linnebo who greatly helped us clarify the rationale behind results proven in (van Vugt 2009). We also need to thank various audiences in Gothenburg, London and Paris for their helpful feedback. The present work originates in the second author’s master thesis under the supervision of the first author (van Vugt 2009). Results in the present work were obtained independently of (Meadows 2013), which proves Proposition 8 supra as its main result (see Footnote 6 for a more detailed discussion). The work of the first author was partly supported by the ESF-funded project ‘Logic for Interaction’, a Collaborative Research Project under the Eurocores program LogICCC.


  1. Cantini, A. (1990). A theory of formal truth arithmetically equivalent to id 1. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 55, 244–259.Google Scholar
  2. Kripke, S. (1975). Outline of a theory of truth. The Journal of Philosophy, 72 (19), 690–716.Google Scholar
  3. Leitgeb, H. (2005). What truth depends on. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 34, 155–192.Google Scholar
  4. Leitgeb, H. (2008). Towards a logic of type-free modality and truth. In D. Costas et al. Logic colloquium 2005 (pp. 68–85) Dimitracopoulos: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  5. McGee, V. (1992). Maximal consistent sets of instances of Tarski’s schema (T). Journal of Philosophical Logic, 21, 235–241.Google Scholar
  6. Meadows, T. (2013). Truth, dependence and supervaluation: Living with the ghost. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 42 (2), 221–240.Google Scholar
  7. Tarski, A. (1955). A lattice–theoretical fixpoint theorem and its applications. Pacific journal of Mathematics,5(2), 285–309.
  8. van Vugt, F. (2009). What makes a sentence be about the world? Master’s thesis, Cogmaster, Ecole Normale Supérieure, Paris (France).Google Scholar
  9. Yablo, S. (1993). Paradox without self-reference. Analysis, 53(4), 251–252.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Université Paris OuestIRePh & IHPSTNanterreFrance
  2. 2.University of Music, Drama and MediaHannoverGermany
  3. 3.IMMMHannoverGermany
  4. 4.Lyon Neuroscience Research CenterUniversité Claude Bernard Lyon-1VilleurbanneFrance

Personalised recommendations