Is Unsaying Polite?

Chapter
Part of the Logic, Epistemology, and the Unity of Science book series (LEUS, volume 25)

Abstract

This paper is divided in five sections. Section 11.1 sketches the history of the distinction between speech act with negative content and negated speech act, and gives a general dynamic interpretation for negated speech act. “Downdate semantics” for AGM contraction is introduced in Section 11.2. Relying on semantically interpreted contraction, Section 11.3 develops the dynamic semantics for constative and directive speech acts, and their external negations. The expressive completeness for the formal variants of natural language utterances, none of which is a retraction, has been proved in Section 11.4. The last section gives a laconic answer to the question posed in the title of the paper.

References

  1. 1.
    Alchourrón, Carlos, Peter Gärdenfors, and David Makinson. 1985. “On the Logic of Theory Change: Partial Meet Contraction and Revision Functions.” Journal of Symbolic Logic 50:510–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Belnap, Nuel and Michael Perloff. 1988. “Seeing to It That: A Canonical Form of Agentives.” Theoria 54:175–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Benthem, Johan van. 1989. Modal Logic as a Theory of Information. Technical Report LP-89-05. ILLC, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Benthem, Johan van. 1993. Exploring Logical Dynamics. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Benthem, Johan van, and Fenrong Liu. 2007. “Dynamic Logic of Preference Upgrade.” Journal of Applied Non-classical Logics. 17:157–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Carroll, Lewis. 2007. Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland: A Facsimile Reprint of the 1866 Edition. Rockville, MD: Wildside Press.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chellas, Brian. 1971. “Imperatives.” Theoria 37:114–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Does, Jaap van der, Willem Groeneveld, and Frank Veltman. 1997. “An Update on “Might”.” Journal of Logic, Language, and Information 6:361–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Eijck, Jan van. 2000. “Making Things Happen.” Studia Logica 66:41–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Grice, Paul. 1989. Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Groenendijk, Jeroen. 2007. “The Logic of Interrogation.” In Questions in Dynamic Semantics, edited by Maria Aloni, Alastair Butler and Paul Dekker, 43–62. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hansson, Sven Ove. 1999. A Textbook of Belief Dynamics : Theory Change and Database Updating. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Horn, Laurence. 1985. “Metalinguistic Negation and Pragmatic Ambiguity.” Language 61:121–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kanger, Stig. 1972. “Law and Logic.” Theoria 38:105–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lemmon, Edward. 1965. “Deontic Logic and the Logic of Imperatives.” Logique et Analyse 8:39–71.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mastop, Rosja. 2005. What can you do?: Imperative Mood in Semantic Theory. Amsterdam: Institute for Logic, Language, and Computation.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rijke, Maarten de. 1998. “A System of Dynamic Modal Logic.” Journal of Philosophical Logic 27:109–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ross, Alf. 1941. “Imperatives and Logic.” Theoria 7:53–71.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Schwager, Magdalena. 2006. “Conditionalized Imperatives.” In Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory XVI, edited by Masayuki Gibson and Jonathan Howell, 241–58. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Searle, John. 1999. Expression and Meaning: Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Segerberg, Krister. 1990. “Validity and Satisfaction in Imperative Logic.” Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 31:203–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Segerberg, Krister. 2001. “The Basic Dynamic Doxastic Logic of AGM.” In Frontiers in Belief Revision, edited by Mary-Anne Williamson and Hans Rott, 57–84. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Stenius, Erik. 1967. “Mood and Language Game.” Synthese 19:27–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Tappenden, Jamie. 1999. “Negation, Denial and Language Change in Philosophical Logic.” In What Is Negation?, edited by Dov Gabbay and Heinrich Wansing, 261–98. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Veltman, Frank. 1996. “Defaults in Update Semantics.” Journal of Philosophical Logic 25:221–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Veltman, Frank. 2005. “Making Counterfactual Assumptions.” Journal of Semantics 22:159–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Vranas, Peter. 2008. “New Foundations for Imperative Logic I: Logical Connectives, Consistency, and Quantifiers.” Noûs 42:529–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Wittgenstein, Ludwig. 1986. Philosophical Investigations. Oxford: Basil Blackwell Ltd.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Wright, Georg Henrik von. 1963. Norm and Action: A Logical Inquiry. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Yamada, Tomoyuki. 2008. Logical Dynamics of Some Speech Acts that Affect Obligations and Preferences. Synthese 165:295–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Žarnić, Berislav. 2003. “Imperative Change and Obligation to Do.” In Logic, Law, Morality: Thirteen Essays in Practical Philosophy in Honour of Lennart Åqvist, edited by Krister Segerberg and Rysiek Sliwinski, 79–95. Uppsala: University of Uppsala.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Žarnić, Berislav. 2003. “Imperative Negation and Dynamic Semantics.” In Meaning: The Dynamic Turn, edited by Jaroslav Peregrin, 201–11. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of PhilosophyUniversity of SplitSplitCroatia

Personalised recommendations