Wittgenstein, Tarski e le origini della Semantica formale

Teoria dei linguaggi Unit 3

Wittgenstein e Tarski
Wittgenstein and Tarski are the two central authors for the affirmation of the identification between meaning
and conditions of truth.
• Wittgenstein
A) explicitly formulates the idea,
B) try to explain how simple statements (at least some of them) can have truthful conditions.
C) elaborates a method to extend the idea to complex statements
• Tarski
A) It shows how the concept of "true" applied to statements of a formal language.
B) By doing this he elaborates a rigourous method for determining the truth conditions of simple statements
starting from the semantic values (in particular from the reference) of the constituent expressions.

Wittgenstein (Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, 1921)

• Theory of representation: the statements depict (are images of) states of affairs.
• State of affairs = possible connection of objects.
Why is it possible? Because false statements also have a meaning and their meaning is given by a link of
objects that is merely possible but not real. The state of affairs (possibleness of objects) represented by an
utterance is its condition of truth, in the sense that if the state of affairs exists the utterance is true, otherwise
it is false.

Simple statements and images: Structural isomorphism

Enunciates and images are both links of objects (names/elements of the image) depicting other links of objects
(states of affairs).The image and the statement depict the state of affairs because:

1) Each element of the image/name of the utterance stands for one and only one element of the state of affairs
depictedFacing one by one between elements of the image/utterance and elements of the state of affairs

2) The fact that there is a certain R relationship between the elements of the image/names of the statement
represents that between the elements of the situation there is an S relationship.
(1) + (2)= Structural isomorphism (structure identity).

The meaning of complex statements

Simple statements (atomic): they depict states of things
Complex statements (molecular): they depict certain combinations of the existence or non-subsistence of states
of affairs depicted by the atomic statements from which they are composed.
What combinations? Those for which the complex statement would be true.

Complex statements as truth functions of simple statements

Since the truth/falsity of a simple statement depends on the subsistence/non-existence of the state of affairs
depicted by it F, the truth conditions of the complex statements are given in terms of the possible combinations
of the truth values of the simple statements that compose them. Complex utterances are truth functions of the
simple statements that compose them. The truth values of the former are determined by the truth values of the
latter. The dependence of the truth value of a complex statement on the truth values of simple statements can
be represented by the method (elaborated by Wittgenstein) of THE TABLES OF TRUTH.

Tarski: the definition of truth for a formalised language (The concept of truth in formalised
languages, 1933)
Tarski's objective: to define "true in L" ("true statement of L"), in which "L" is a specific formal language (the
language of set theory).Condition of material adequacy for the definition of truth:
Convention V
A definition of 'true in L' is materially appropriate for each statement of L, the biconditional V, that is, the
statements of the form, are deductible from it: S it's true sse p
(In which «S» is a name (in metalanguage) of an utterance of L and «p» is its translation into metalanguage.)
Why "material"? F there would be no reason to consider a definition that does not respect this requirement as
a definition of "true" rather than some other conceptFi biconditional V are obvious truths about the truth
accepted by anyone who understands a certain language and the meaning of "true".

The indefinability of "true" for natural languages

According to Tarski, it cannot be strictly defined as "true" for a natural language because these languages in
turn contain the word "true" and this would make the definition contradictory. Therefore, it can be defined as
"true" only for the statements of formal languages. These languages, in fact, unlike natural ones, do not contain
their own predicate of truth.

Tarski and the dominant paradigm

Decisive step taken by Tarski for the affirmation of the dominant paradigm: Elaborates a rigourous method to
systematically determine the truth conditions of simple statements based on the reference/denotation of the
expressions that compose them (singular and predicated terms).
Formal semantics (Davidson, Montague) F a theory of meaning for a language is a Tarsky-type specification
of the truth conditions of the statements of that language (this does not necessarily involve embracing a
referential theory of lexical meaning). Meaning theory for L = Tarskyian definition of truth for L