Abstract

In this paper I focus on Lask’s theory of the form of judgement, in order to argue that: (i) Lask’s definition of form is referentialist, meaning that it involves a necessary reference to the relevant matter; (ii) the surface structure of judgement, which is described by grammar, does not necessarily identify with its deep structure, which is described by metagrammar; (iii) only metagrammar allows us to explain the representationality of judgement; (iv) the previous points agree with an extensionalist definition of judgemental representation.