关于逻辑后果与自然语言的思考

Q2 Arts and Humanities

DIALECTICA Pub Date : 2022-11-18 DOI:10.48106/dial.v74.i2.06

Gil Sagi

{"title":"关于逻辑后果与自然语言的思考","authors":"Gil Sagi","doi":"10.48106/dial.v74.i2.06","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In a recent article, “Logical Consequence and Natural Language,” Michael Glanzberg claims that there is no relation of logical consequence in natural language (2015). The present paper counters that claim. I shall discuss Glanzberg’s arguments and show why they don’t hold. I further show how Glanzberg’s claims may be used to rather support the existence of logical consequence in natural language.","PeriodicalId":46676,"journal":{"name":"DIALECTICA","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Considerations on Logical Consequence and Natural Language\",\"authors\":\"Gil Sagi\",\"doi\":\"10.48106/dial.v74.i2.06\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In a recent article, “Logical Consequence and Natural Language,” Michael Glanzberg claims that there is no relation of logical consequence in natural language (2015). The present paper counters that claim. I shall discuss Glanzberg’s arguments and show why they don’t hold. I further show how Glanzberg’s claims may be used to rather support the existence of logical consequence in natural language.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46676,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"DIALECTICA\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-11-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"DIALECTICA\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.48106/dial.v74.i2.06\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Arts and Humanities\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"DIALECTICA","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.48106/dial.v74.i2.06","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

摘要

在最近的一篇文章“逻辑结果和自然语言”中，Michael Glanzberg声称在自然语言中没有逻辑结果的关系(2015)。本文反驳了这种说法。我将讨论格兰茨伯格的论点，并说明为什么它们站不住脚。我进一步展示了Glanzberg的主张如何被用来支持自然语言中逻辑结果的存在。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

Considerations on Logical Consequence and Natural Language

In a recent article, “Logical Consequence and Natural Language,” Michael Glanzberg claims that there is no relation of logical consequence in natural language (2015). The present paper counters that claim. I shall discuss Glanzberg’s arguments and show why they don’t hold. I further show how Glanzberg’s claims may be used to rather support the existence of logical consequence in natural language.

求助全文

通过发布文献求助，成功后即可免费获取论文全文。去求助

来源期刊

DIALECTICA PHILOSOPHY-

CiteScore

0.80

自引率

0.00%

发文量

期刊介绍： Dialectica publishes first-rate articles predominantly in theoretical and systematic philosophy. It is edited in Switzerland and has a focus on analytical philosophy undertaken on the continent. Continuing the work of its founding members, dialectica seeks a better understanding of the mutual support between science and philosophy that both disciplines need and enjoy in their common search for understanding.