Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T10:49:37.922Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Trivalence, gapped bivalence, and ambiguity of negation: a reply to Seuren

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Noel Burton-Roberts
Noel Burton-Roberts
Affiliation:
School of English, University of Newcastle upon Tyne
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In his response to ‘On Horn's Dilemma’ (Burton-Roberts, 1989a, henceforth OHD), Seuren makes it clear that he believes that the argument of OHD is vitiated by my failure to pay attention to his own logical system for presupposition. That system embodies (a) a pre-theoretical conception of P-failure (as in The king of France is wise) as being tied to a THIRD TRUTH-VALUE (‘Radical Falsity’) and (b) his view that a semantic ambiguity of negation (SAN) exists and should be welcomed. OHD, by contrast, was concerned with the connections between (a) the Strawson-Frege definition of P, (b) a pre-theoretical view of P in which P-failure is tied, not to a third truth-value, but to LACK of truth-value, and (c) Horn's view of negation as being semantically UNambiguous in the object language. So I disregarded Seuren's theory as being irrelevant to the argument of OHD. I shall make up for it here, though, showing that Seuren's system, and his own claims for it, provide ample corroboration of those arguments and, indeed, of the arguments of Burton-Roberts (1989b) against any formally trivalent approach to the logic of presupposition. I set the scene first with a brief account of the recent history of the distinction between trivalence and gapped bivalence (Section 2). Then I consider in Section 3 the argument of OHD and Seuren's response, and go on to examine Seuren's system (Section 4). Finally, and very summarily, I compare the pragmatic account of special negation outlined in OHD with the semantic account favoured by Seuren (Section 5).

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 26 , Issue 2 , September 1990 , pp. 455 - 470
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1990

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Atlas, J. (1979). How linguistics matters to philosophy: presupposition, truth and meaning. In Oh, C. & Dinneen, D. (eds) Syntax and semantics II: Presupposition. New York: Academic Press. 265–281.Google Scholar
Atlas, J. (1989). Philosophy without ambiguity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bergmann, M. (1981). Presupposition and two-dimensional logic. Journal of Philosophical Logic 10. 27–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burton-Roberts, N. (1989a). On Horn's Dilemma: presupposition and negation. JL 25. 95–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burton-Roberts, N. (1989b). The limits to debate: a revised theory of semantic presupposition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Burton-Roberts, N. (To appear). Atlas, linguistics and philosophy. (Review of Atlas, 1989). Mind and Language.Google Scholar
Dummett, M. (1973). Frege: Philosophy of language. London: Duckworth.Google Scholar
Evans, G. (1982). The varieties of reference. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
van Fraassen, B. (1970a). Truth and paradoxical consequences. In Martin, R. (ed.) The paradox of the liar. New Haven: Yale University Press. 18–23.Google Scholar
van Fraassen, B. (1970b). On a Kantian conception of language. Also in Martin, R. (ed.). 59–66.Google Scholar
Hausser, R. (1976). Presuppositions in Montague Grammar. Theoretical Linguistics 3. 245–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herzberger, H. (1970). Truth and modality in semantically closed languages.Google Scholar
Horn, L. (1985). Metalinguistic negation and pragmatic ambiguity. Lg 61. 121–74.Google Scholar
Horn, L. (1990). Showdown at Truth-Value Gap: Burton-Roberts on presupposition. (Review of Burton-Roberts 1989b.) This volume: 483–503.Google Scholar
Kempson, R. (1986). Ambiguity and the semantics-pragmatics distinction. In Travis, C. (ed.) Meaning and interpretation. Oxford: Blackwell. 77–103.Google Scholar
Kempson, R. (1988). Grammar and conversational principles. In Newmeyer, F. J. (ed.) Linguistics: the Cambridge Survey. Vol. II. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 139–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, R. (1970). (ed.) The paradox of the liar. New Haven: Yale University Press. 25–46.Google Scholar
Mioduszewska, E. (1985). A solution to the projection problem for presuppositions of compound sentences with Blau's three-valued logic system. Papers and Studies in Contrastive Linguistics. 20. 85–94.Google Scholar
Quine, W. (1960). Word and object. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Rescher, N. (1969). Many-valued logic. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Seuren, P. (1984). Logic and truth-values in language. In Landman, F. & Veltman, F. (eds) Varieties of formal semantics. Dordrecht: Foris. 343–363.Google Scholar
Seuren, P. (1985). Discourse semantics. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Seuren, P. (1990). Burton-Roberts on presupposition and negation. This volume: 425–453.Google Scholar
Zwicky, A. & Sadock, J. (1975). Ambiguity tests and how to fail them. In Kimball, J. (ed.) Syntax and semantic: 4. New York: Academic Press. 1–36.Google Scholar