Foundations of semantic analysis

  • Marie DužíEmail author
  • Bjørn Jespersen
  • Pavel Materna
Part of the Logic, Epistemology, and the Unity of Science book series (LEUS, volume 17)


In this chapter we introduce the foundations of our method of logical analysis of natural language (LANL).


  1. Scott, D. 1979. Identity and existence in intuitionistic logic. In Applications of Sheaves, vol. 753, eds. M.P. Fourman, C.J. Mulvey, and D.S. Scott, 660–696. Berlin: Springer, Lecture Notes in Mathematics.Google Scholar
  2. Davies, M. 1981. Meaning, Quantification, Necessity. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  3. Bealer, G. 1979. Theories of properties, relations, and propositions. Journal of Philosophy 76: 634–648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Gamut, L.T.F. 1991. Logic, Language and Meaning, vol. II. Chicago, London: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  5. Adams, R.M. 1974. Theories of actuality. Noûs 8: 211–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Guenthner, F. 1978. Systems of intensional logic and the semantics of natural language. In Studies in Formal Semantics, eds. F. Guenthner and C. Rohrer, 41–74. Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
  7. Materna, P. 2007. Church’s criticism of Carnap’s intensional isomorphism from the viewpoint of TIL. In The World of Language and the World Beyond Language: A Festschrift for Pavel Cmorej, eds. T. Marvan and M. Zouhar, 108–118. Bratislava: Department of Philosophy, Slovak Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
  8. Bealer, G. and U. Mönnich. 1984. Property theories. In Handbook of Philosophical Logic, vol. IV, eds. D. Gabbay and F. Günthner. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.Google Scholar
  9. Carnap, R. 1950. Logical Foundations of Probability. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Tichý, P. 1988. The Foundations of Frege’s Logic. Berlin, New York: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
  11. Moschovakis, Y.N. 1994. Sense and denotation as algorithm and value. In Lecture Notes in Logic, vol. 2, eds. J. Väänänen and J. Oikkonen, 210–249. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  12. Materna, P. 1998. Concepts and Objects, vol. 63. Acta Philosophica Fennica. Helsinki: Philosophical Society of Finland.Google Scholar
  13. Lewis, D. 1970. Anselm and actuality. Noûs 4: 175–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Duží, M. 2004. Intensional logic and the irreducible contrast between de dicto and de re. ProFil 5, 1–34. Google Scholar
  15. Duží, M. and P. Materna. 2005. Logical form. In Essays on the Foundations of Mathematics and Logic 1, ed. G. Sica, 115–153. Monza: Polimetrica International Scientific Publisher.Google Scholar
  16. Patton, T.E. 1997. Explaining referential/attributive. Mind 106: 245–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Materna, P. 1999. Simple concepts and simple expressions. In The Logica Yearbook 1999, ed. T. Childers, 245–257. Prague: Filosofia, Czech Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
  18. Materna, P. and J. Petrželka. 2008. Definition and concept. Aristotelian definition vindicated. Studia Neoaristotelica 5: 1, 3–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Einheuser, I. 2005. Two types of rigid designation. Dialectica 59: 367–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Materna, P. 2004b. The so-called myth of museum. Organon F 11: 229–242.Google Scholar
  21. Kleene, S.C. 1952. Introduction to Metamathematics. New York, Toronto: D. van Nostrand Company.Google Scholar
  22. Whitehead, A.N. and B. Russell. 1964. Principia Mathematica. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Tichý, P. 1975. What do we talk about? Philosophy of Science 42: 80–93. Reprinted in (Tichý 2004: 205–220).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Davies, M. and L. Humberstone. 1980. Two notions of necessity. Philosophical Studies 38: 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jespersen, B. 2010. Hyperintensions and procedural isomorphism: Alternative (½). In The Analytical Way, Proceedings of the 6 th European Congress of Analytic Philosophy, ECAP VI, eds. T. Czarnecki, K. Kijania-Placek, O. Poller, J. Woleński, 299–320. London: College Publications.Google Scholar
  26. Duží, M., B. Jespersen, and J. Müller. 2005. Epistemic closure and inferable knowledge. In The Logica Yearbook 2004, eds. L. Běhounek and M. Bílková, 125–140. Prague: Filosofia, Czech Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
  27. Cresswell, M.J. 1975. Hyperintensional logic. Studia Logica 34: 25–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Church, A. 1993. A revised formulation of the logic of sense and denotation. Alternative (1). Noûs 27: 141–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Manna, Z. and A. Pnueli. 1992. The Temporal Logic of Reactive and Concurrent Systems: Specification. New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  30. Friedman, J. and D. Warren. 1980. Lambda normal forms in an intensional logic for English. Studia Logica 39: 311–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Schönfinkel, M. 1924. Über die Bausteine der mathematischen Logik. Mathematische Annalen 92: 305–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Tichý, P. 1982. Foundations of partial type theory. Reports on Mathematical Logic 14: 52–72. Reprinted in (Tichý 2004: 467–480).Google Scholar
  33. Dummett, M. 1981. The Interpretation of Frege’s Philosophy. London: Duckworth.Google Scholar
  34. Anderson, C.A. 1998. Alonzo Church’s contributions to philosophy and intensional logic. The Bulletin of Symbolic Logic 4: 129–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Jespersen, B. 2005. Explicit intensionalisation, anti-actualism, and how Smith’s murderer might not have murdered Smith. Dialectica 59: 285–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Aczel, P. 1980. Frege structures and the notions of proposition, truth and set. In The Kleene Symposium, eds. J. Barwise, H.J. Keisler, and K. Kunen, 31–59. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
  37. Tichý, P. 1972. Plantinga on essence: A few questions. Philosophical Review 81: 82–93. Reprinted in (Tichý 2004: 175–188).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Zouhar, M. 2009. On the notion of rigidity for general terms. Grazer Philosophische Studien 78: 207–229.Google Scholar
  39. Materna, P. and M. Duží. 2005. The Parmenides principle. Philosophia 32: 155–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Plantinga, A. 1974. Nature of Necessity. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  41. Gumb, R.D. 2000. Model sets in a nonconstructive logic of partial terms with definite descriptions. Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 1847: 268–278, Springer.Google Scholar
  42. Sandu, G. and J. Hintikka. 2001. Aspects of compositionality. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 10: 49–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Horwich, P. 1997. The composition of meanings. Philosophical Review 106: 503–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Anderson, C.A. 1980. Some new axioms for the logic of sense and denotation. Nous 14: 217–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Materna, P. 2005. Ordinary modalities. Logique et Analyse 48: 57–70.Google Scholar
  46. Jackendoff, R. 1990. Semantic Structures. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  47. Betti, A. 2008. Polish axiomatics and its truth: On Tarski’s Leśniewskian background and the Ajdukiewicz connection. In New Essays on Tarski and philosophy, ed. D. Patterson, 44–71. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Gaskin, R. 2008. The Unity of the Proposition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Tichý, P. 1971. An approach to intensional analysis. Noûs 5: 273–297. Reprinted in (Tichý 2004: 111–137).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Lambert, K. (ed.). 1991. Philosophical Applications of Free Logic, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marie Duží
    • 1
    Email author
  • Bjørn Jespersen
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Pavel Materna
    • 4
    • 5
  1. 1.Fac. Electric Engineering and Computer Science, VSB-Technical University OstravaOstravaCzech Republic
  2. 2.Fac. Technology, Policy & Management, Delft University of TechnologyDelftNetherlands
  3. 3.Dept. LogicASCR Prague, Inst. PhilosophyPraha 1Czech Republic
  4. 4.Dept. LogicASCR Praha, Inst. PhilosophyPraha 1Czech Republic
  5. 5.Faculty of Informatics, Faculty of Arts, A. Nováka 1, Masaryk UniversityBrnoCzech Republic

Personalised recommendations