Acceptable Contradictions: Pragmatics or Semantics? A Reply to Cobreros et al.
Acceptable Contradictions: Pragmatics or Semantics? A Reply to Cobreros et al.
复制标题
可接受的矛盾：语用学还是语义学？
DOI：
10.1007/s10992-012-9241-7
复制
发表时间：
2013
影响因子：
1.5
通讯作者：
U. Sauerland
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Sam Alxatib;Peter Pagin;U. Sauerland
天真的说话者发现一些逻辑矛盾是可以接受的，特别是涉及模糊谓词的边界矛盾，如Joe is and isn't tall。在最近的一篇论文中，Cobreros et al.（J Philos Logic，2012）提出了一个关于边界矛盾可接受性的实用主义解释。然而，我们发现，务实的帐户预测错误的真理条件的一些例子与析取。作为补救措施，我们提出了一个语义分析。这种分析接近于模糊逻辑的一种变体，但合取和析取被解释为内涵运算符。
Naive speakers find some logical contradictions acceptable, specifically borderline contradictions involving vague predicates such as Joe is and isn’t tall. In a recent paper, Cobreros et al. (J Philos Logic, 2012) suggest a pragmatic account of the acceptability of borderline contradictions. We show, however, that the pragmatic account predicts the wrong truth conditions for some examples with disjunction. As a remedy, we propose a semantic analysis instead. The analysis is close to a variant of fuzzy logic, but conjunction and disjunction are interpreted as intensional operators.