Formal semantics is understood either as a formal analysis of semantical features of natural language or as model-theoretic semantics of formal(ized) languages. This paper focuses on the second understanding. The problem is how to identify the formal aspects of formal semantics, if we understand ‘formal’ as ‘independent of content’. This is done by showing that the form of semantical interpretation of a language L is given by its syntax and the parallelism of the signature of L and its interpretative structure (...) SI. However, the content of interpretation, that is, the way of correlating of L-expressions with extralinguistic items depends of informal factors. The discussion shows that semantics is prior to syntax. (shrink)

I first became interested in Husserl and Heidegger as long ago as 1980, when as an undergraduate at the Freie Universitat Berlin I studied the books by Professor Ernst Tugendhat. Tugendhat's at tempt to bring together analytical and continental philosophy has never ceased to fascinate me, and even though in more recent years other influences have perhaps been stronger, I should like to look upon the present study as still being indebted to Tugendhat's initial incentive. It was my good fortune (...) that for personal reasons I had to con tinue my academic training from 1981 onwards in Finland. Even though Finland is a stronghold of analytical philosophy, it also has a tradition of combining continental and Anglosaxon philosophical thought. Since I had already admired this line of work in Tugendhat, it is hardly surprising that once in Finland I soon became impressed by Professor Jaakko Hintikka's studies on Husserl and intentionality, and by Professor Georg Henrik von Wright's analytical hermeneu tics. While the latter influence has-at least in part-led to a book on the history of hermeneutics, the former influence has led to the present work. My indebtedness to Professor Hintikka is enormous. Not only is the research reported here based on his suggestions, but Hintikka has also commented extensively on different versions of the manuscript, helped me to make important contacts, found a publisher for me, and-last but not least-was a never failing source of encouragement. (shrink)

Löwenheim's theorem reflects a critical point in the history of mathematical logic, for it marks the birth of model theory--that is, the part of logic that concerns the relationship between formal theories and their models. However, while the original proofs of other, comparably significant theorems are well understood, this is not the case with Löwenheim's theorem. For example, the very result that scholars attribute to Löwenheim today is not the one that Skolem--a logician raised in the algebraic tradition, like Löwenheim--appears (...) to have attributed to him. In The Birth of Model Theory, Calixto Badesa provides both the first sustained, book-length analysis of Löwenheim's proof and a detailed description of the theoretical framework--and, in particular, of the algebraic tradition--that made the theorem possible. Badesa's three main conclusions amount to a completely new interpretation of the proof, one that sharply contradicts the core of modern scholarship on the topic. First, Löwenheim did not use an infinitary language to prove his theorem; second, the functional interpretation of Löwenheim's normal form is anachronistic, and inappropriate for reconstructing the proof; and third, Löwenheim did not aim to prove the theorem's weakest version but the stronger version Skolem attributed to him. This book will be of considerable interest to historians of logic, logicians, philosophers of logic, and philosophers of mathematics. (shrink)

This accessible introduction to formal, and especially Montague, semantics within a linguistic framework, presupposes no previous background in logic, but takes students step-by-step from simple predicate/argument structures and their interpretation to Montague's intentional logic.

In the general theory of logic built up by Whitehead and Russell to furnish a basis for all mathematics there is a certain subtheory which is unique in its simplicity and precision; and though all other portions of the work have their roots in this subtheory, it itself is completely independent of them. Whereas the complete theory requires for the enunciation of its propositions real and apparent variables, which represent both individuals and propositional functions of different kinds, and as a (...) result necessitates- the introduction of the cumbersome theory of types, this subtheory uses only real variables, and these real variables represent but one kind of entity—which the authors have chosen to call elementary propositions. The most general statements are formed by merely combining these variables by means of the two primitive propositional functions of propositions Negation and Disjunction; and the entire theory is concerned with the process of asserting those combinations which it regards as true propositions, employing for this purpose a few general rules which tell how to assert new combinations from old, and a certain number of primitive assertions from which to begin. (shrink)

This is a summary of developments analysed in my (1997A). A first version of that paper was presented at the workshop Modern Mathematical Thought in Pittsburgh (September 21-24, 1995).