Scholarlink

<p>I compare the logical expressivism of Hlobil and Brandom with the inferential expressivism of Incurvati and Schlöder with an emphasis on their respective analyses of negation. I conclude that these differences do not run very deep. For negation specifically, Incurvati and Schlöder, but not Hlobil and Brandom, appeal to a primitive expression for rejection in the object language. However, I note that both ultimately admit primitive rejection and, thus, that this difference is merely one of abstraction. Nevertheless, I suggest that it would be useful for Hlobil and Brandom to follow Incurvati and Schlöder’s lead on rejection in the object language. Conversely, it would be useful for Incurvati and Schlöder to adopt the overall meta-semantic strategy of Hlobil and Brandom. I sketch a synthesis that combines the best features of either approach.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Towards a Synthesis of Inferential and Logical Expressivism

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2026年7月26日

查看全文
  • Julian J. Schloeder

摘要

I compare the logical expressivism of Hlobil and Brandom with the inferential expressivism of Incurvati and Schlöder with an emphasis on their respective analyses of negation. I conclude that these differences do not run very deep. For negation specifically, Incurvati and Schlöder, but not Hlobil and Brandom, appeal to a primitive expression for rejection in the object language. However, I note that both ultimately admit primitive rejection and, thus, that this difference is merely one of abstraction. Nevertheless, I suggest that it would be useful for Hlobil and Brandom to follow Incurvati and Schlöder’s lead on rejection in the object language. Conversely, it would be useful for Incurvati and Schlöder to adopt the overall meta-semantic strategy of Hlobil and Brandom. I sketch a synthesis that combines the best features of either approach.