Semantics

Sai Gon University

tvanh@sgu.edu.vn
 Unit: Logic
Lesson 12: ABOUT LOGIC
Logic is a word that means many things to
different people. Many everyday uses of the words
logic and logical could be replaced by expressions
such as reasonable behaviour and reasonable. You
may say, for instance, ‘Sue acted quite logically in
locking her door’, meaning that Sue had good, well
thought- out reasons for doing what she did. We
shall use the words logic and logical in a narrower
sense, familiar to semanticists. We give a partial
definition of our sense of logic below.
 LOGIC deals with meanings in a language system, not
with actual behaviour of any sort. Logic deals most
centrally with PROPOSITIONS. The terms ‘logic’ and
‘logical’ do not apply directly to UTTERANCES (which are
instances of behaviour).
MODUS PONENS is a rule stating that if a proposition P
entails a proposition Q, and P is true, then Q is true. Put
in the form of a diagram, Modus Ponens looks like this:
• MODUS PONENS is a rule stating that if a proposition P
entails a proposition Q, and P is true, then Q is true. Put
in the form of a diagram, Modus Ponens looks like this:
P1Q
P
Q
 Logic deals with meanings in a language system
(i.e. with propositions, etc.), not with actual
behaviour, although logical calculations are an
ingredient of any rational behaviour. A system
for describing logical thinking contains a
notation for representing propositions
unambiguously and rules of inference defining
how propositions go together to make up valid
arguments.
Because logic deals with such very basic aspects
of thought and reasoning, it can sometimes
seem as if it is ‘stating the obvious’.
 The thing to remember is that one is not, in the end,
interested in individual particular examples of correct
logical argument (for, taken individually, such examples are
usually very obvious and trivial), but rather in describing
the whole system of logical inference, i.e. one is trying to
build up a comprehensive account of all logical reasoning,
from which the facts about the individual examples will
follow automatically. One only looks at individual examples
in order to check that the descriptive system that one is
building does indeed match the facts.
Logic, with its emphasis on absolute precision, has a
fascination for students who enjoy a mental discipline.
Thus, in addition to its contribution to our understanding
of the ‘Laws of Thought’, it can be good fun.
 Lesson 13: A NOTATION FOR SIMPLE
PROPOSITIONS
Logic provides a notation for unambiguously
representing the essentials of propositions.
Logic has in fact been extremely selective in the
parts of language it has dealt with; but the parts
it has dealt with it has treated in great depth.
 Every SIMPLE proposition is representable by a
single PREDICATOR, drawn from the predicates
in the language, and a number of ARGUMENTS,
drawn from the names in the language. This
implies, among other things, that no formula for
a simple proposition can have TWO (or more)
predicators, and it cannot have anything which
is neither a predicate nor a name.
Ex: j LOVE m is a well-formed formula for a
simple proposition j m is not a well-formed
formula, because it contains no predicator j
IDOLIZE ADORE m is not a well-formed
formula for a simple proposition, because it
contains two predicators j and h LOVE m is not
a well-formed formula for a simple
proposition because it contains something
(‘and’) which is neither a predicator nor a
name
We have presented a logical notation for simple
propositions. A well-formed formula for a simple
proposition contains a single predicator, drawn
from the predicates in the language, and a number
of arguments, drawn from the names in the
language. The notation we have given contains no
elements corresponding to articles such as a and
the, certain prepositions, and certain instances of
the verb be, as these make no contribution to the
truth conditions of the sentences containing them.
We have also, for convenience only, omitted any
representation of tense in our logical formulae.
 The introduction of a notation for propositions
(to be refined in subsequent units) fills a gap
left empty since Unit 2, where we introduced
a way of representing sentences and
utterances, but not propositions. We now
have (the beginnings of) a way of representing
items at all three levels:
Utterance Sentence Proposition
‘Jesus wept’ Jesus wept j WEEP
 Lesson 14: CONNECTIVES: AND AND OR
The English words and and or correspond
(roughly) to logical connectives. Connectives
provide a way of joining simple propositions to
form complex propositions. A logical analysis
must state exactly how joining propositions by
means of a connective affects the truth of the
complex propositions so formed. We start
with the connective corresponding to and,
firstly introducing a notation for complex
propositions formed with this connective.
Any number of individual well formed formulae can
be placed in a sequence with the symbol & between
each adjacent pair in the sequence: the result is a
complex well formed formula.
Ex: Take the three simple formulae:
c COME g (Caesar came to Gaul)
c SEE g (Caesar saw Gaul)
c CONQUER g (Caesar conquered
Gaul) From these, a single complex formula can be
formed:
(c COME g) & (c SEE g) & (c CONQUER g)
Commutativity of conjunction:
p&q (premiss)
q&p (conclusion)

Any number of wellformed formulae can be placed

in a sequence with the symbol V between each
adjacent pair in the sequence: the result is a
complex wellformed formula.

The thesis of COMPOSITIONALITY of meaning is that

the meaning of any expression is a function of the
meanings of the parts of which it is composed.
 The logical connectives & (corresponding to
English and and but) and V (roughly English or)
are used to form complex propositional
formulae by connecting simple propositional
formulae. Rules of inference can be given
involving these connectives, and they can be
defined by means of truth tables.
 MORE CONNECTIVES
Unit 14: introduced connectives of conjunction
and disjunction. In this unit you will meet three
more connectives: implication 1, equivalence 6
and negation ~.
Rule p 6 q is equivalent to (p 1 q) & (q 1 p)
 The logical negation operator ~ corresponds
fairly closely with English not or n’t in meaning,
and can be defined both by truth table and by
rules of inference. The logical connectives 1
(conditional) and 6 (biconditional) cannot be
defined by truth table in any way which closely
reflects the meanings of English if . . . then and
if and only if. However, rules of inference can be
given for them which fairly accurately reflect
valid inferences in English involving if . . . then
and if and only if.
 Now that you are familiar with these
connectives, the conjunction and disjunction
connectives of the previous unit, and the
negation operator, you have met all the formal
apparatus that together forms the system known
as ‘propositional logic’, or ‘propositional calculus’.
This branch of Logic deals with the ways in which
propositions can be connected (and negated) and
the effect which these operations (of connection
and negation) have in terms of truth and
falsehood. This establishes a solid foundation for
more advanced work in logic.
GOOD LUCK!