Show simple item record

Qualified Definiteness

dc.contributor.authorWięckowski, Bartosz
dc.date.accessioned2026-03-13T13:52:15Z
dc.date.available2026-03-13T13:52:15Z
dc.date.issued2026-03-13
dc.identifier.issn0138-0680
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11089/57697
dc.description.abstractAccording to Russell, the definite article ‘the’ in a definite description ‘the F’ is used strictly in case there is a unique F and it is used loosely in case there is more than one F. Russell’s analysis of constructions of the form ‘the F is G’ is concerned only with the strict use. We modify this analysis so as to allow also for the loose use. This is achieved essentially by replacing the usual undefined notion of identity in Russell’s uniqueness clause with the defined notion of qualified identity (i.e., ‘a is the same as b in all Q-respects’, where Q is a subset of the set of predicate constants P) proposed in earlier work. This modification gives us qualified notions of uniqueness and definiteness. A qualified definiteness statement ‘the Q-unique F is G’ is strict in case Q=P and loose in case Q is a proper subset of P. The account is made formally precise in terms of proof theory and proof-theoretic semantics. The framework is intended to be acceptable from a foundational intuitionistic point of view. It is applied to natural language constructions with complete, incomplete, and generic definite descriptions. Also constructions with nested and with predicatively used definite descriptions are considered as well as constructions involving possessives. This work incorporates and extends my NCL’24-paper ‘Incomplete descriptions and qualified definiteness’.en
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherWydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiegopl
dc.relation.ispartofseriesBulletin of the Section of Logic;4en
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0
dc.subjectdefinite descriptions (generic, incomplete, nested, Haddock, predicative)en
dc.subjectidentityen
dc.subjectintuitionistic logicen
dc.subjectproof-theoretic semanticsen
dc.subjectuniquenessen
dc.titleQualified Definitenessen
dc.typeOther
dc.page.number475–518
dc.contributor.authorAffiliationGoethe-Universität Frankfurt am Main, Institut für Philosophie, Germanyen
dc.identifier.eissn2449-836X
dc.referencesP. Elbourne, Definite Descriptions, Oxford Studies in Semantics and Pragmatics, Vol. 1, Oxford University Press, Oxford (2013), DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199660193.001.0001.en
dc.referencesP. Elbourne, Incomplete Descriptions and Indistinguishable Participants, Natural Language Semantics, vol. 24(1) (2016), pp. 1–43, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-015-9118-8.en
dc.referencesN. Francez, B. Więckowski, A Proof-Theoretic Semantics for Contextual Definiteness, [in:] E. Moriconi, L. Tesconi (eds.), Second Pisa Colloquium in Logic, Language and Epistemology, Pisa: Edizioni ETS (2014), pp. 181–212.en
dc.referencesN. Francez, B. Więckowski, A Proof-Theory for First-Order Logic With Definiteness, The IfCoLog Journal of Logics and their Applications, vol. 4(2) (2017), pp. 313–331.en
dc.referencesP. T. Geach, Identity, The Review of Metaphysics, vol. 21(1) (1967), pp. 3–12, URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/20124493.en
dc.referencesJ.-Y. Girard, From Foundations to Ludics, The Bulletin of Symbolic Logic, vol. 9(2) (2003), pp. 131–168, DOI: https://doi.org/10.2178/bsl/1052669286.en
dc.referencesD. Graff, Descriptions as Predicates, Philosophical Studies, vol. 102(1) (2001), pp. 1–42, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010379409594.en
dc.referencesN. J. Haddock, Incremental Interpretation and Combinatory Categorial Grammar, [in:] J. P. McDermott (ed.), Proceedings of the 10th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 2, San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers (1987), pp. 661–663.en
dc.referencesA. Indrzejczak, The Logicality of Equality, [in:] T. Piecha, K. F. Wehmeier (eds.), Peter Schroeder-Heister on Proof-Theoretic Semantics, vol. 29 of Outstanding Contributions to Logic, Cham, Switzerland: Springer (2024), pp. 211–238, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-50981-0_7.en
dc.referencesS. T. Kuhn, Embedded Definite Descriptions: Russellian Analysis and Semantic Puzzles, Mind, vol. 109(435) (2000), pp. 443–454, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/mind/109.435.443.en
dc.referencesN. Kürbis, A Binary Quantifier for Definite Descriptions in Intuitionist Negative Free Logic: Natural Deduction and Normalisation, Bulletin of the Section of Logic, vol. 48(2) (2019), pp. 81–97, DOI: https://doi.org/10.18778/0138-0680.48.2.01.en
dc.referencesP. Ludlow, Descriptions, [in:] E. N. Zalta, U. Nodelman (eds.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2023 Edition) (2023), URL: https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2023/entries/descriptions.en
dc.referencesD. Prawitz, Natural Deduction: A Proof-Theoretical Study, Almqvist and Wiksell, Stockholm (1965 (Reprint 2006)).en
dc.referencesS. Read, Identity and Harmony, Analysis, vol. 64(2) (2004), pp. 113–119, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/analys/64.2.113.en
dc.referencesS. Read, Harmonic Inferentialism and the Logic of Identity, The Review of Symbolic Logic, vol. 9(2) (2016), pp. 408–420, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1755020316000010.en
dc.referencesB. Russell, On Denoting, Mind, vol. 14(56) (1905), pp. 479–493, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/mind/XIV.4.479.en
dc.referencesP. Schroeder-Heister, Proof-Theoretic Semantics, [in:] E. N. Zalta, U. Nodelman (eds.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2023 Edition) (2023), URL: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic-semantics/.en
dc.referencesJ. Stanley, Z. G. Szabó, On Quantifier Domain Restriction, Mind and Language, vol. 15(2–3) (2000), pp. 219–261, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0017.00130.en
dc.referencesS. Stenlund, Descriptions in Intuitionistic Logic, [in:] S. Kanger (ed.), Proceedings of the Third Scandinavian Logic Symposium, vol. 82 of Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics, Amsterdam: North-Holland (1975), pp. 197–212, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0049-237X(08)70732-8.en
dc.referencesZ. G. Szabó, Definite Descriptions Without Uniqueness: A Reply to Abbott, Philosophical Studies, vol. 114(3) (2003), pp. 279–291, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024904828212.en
dc.referencesA. S. Troelstra, H. Schwichtenberg, Basic Proof Theory, Cambridge Tracts in Theoretical Computer Science, Vol. 43, 2nd edition, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2000), DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139168717.en
dc.referencesB. Więckowski, Subatomic Natural Deduction for a Naturalistic First-Order Language With Non-Primitive Identity, Journal of Logic, Language and Information, vol. 25(2) (2016), pp. 215–268, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10849-016-9238-7.en
dc.referencesB. Więckowski, Subatomic Negation, Journal of Logic, Language and Information, vol. 30(1) (2021), pp. 207–262, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10849-020-09325-4.en
dc.referencesB. Więckowski, Negative Predication and Distinctness, Logica Universalis, vol. 17(1) (2023), pp. 103–138, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11787-022-00321-9.en
dc.referencesB. Więckowski, Incomplete Descriptions and Qualified Definiteness, [in:] A. Indrzejczak, M. Zawidzki (eds.), Non-Classical Logics. Theory and Applications (NCL’24), vol. 415 of Electronic Proceedings in Theoretical Computer Science (2024), pp. 109–120, DOI: https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.4204/EPTCS.415.12.en
dc.contributor.authorEmailwieckowski@em.uni-frankfurt.de
dc.identifier.doi10.18778/0138-0680.2025.16
dc.relation.volume54


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Name:
475-518_Wieckowski.pdf
Size:
1.899Mb
Format:
PDF
View/Open

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0