Possible worlds semantics

Paul Gochet
Table of contents

In 1919, Irving Lewis axiomatically introduced the connective ⊰, rendered as ‘Necessarily if … then …’ or ‘It is impossible for … to be the case and for … not to be the case’, and called strict implication. It was explained as follows: “the relation of strict implication expresses precisely that relation which holds when valid deduction is possible and fails to hold when valid deduction is not possible” (Lewis & Langford 1932: 247).

Full-text access is restricted to subscribers. Log in to obtain additional credentials. For subscription information see Subscription & Price.

References

Aloni, M.
2001 Quantification under Conceptual Covers. ILLC Dissertation Series. Google Scholar
Carnap, R.
1956 Meaning and necessity. Phoenix Books.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Couturat, L.
(ed.) 1903 Opuscules et fragments de Leibniz. Alcan. Google Scholar
Cresswell, M.J.
1973 Logics and language. Methuen.  BoPGoogle Scholar
1978 Semantic competence. In F. Guenthner & M. Guenthner-Reutter (eds.) Meaning and translation: 9–27. Duckworth. Google Scholar
1985 Structured meanings. MIT Press. Google Scholar
1990 Entities and indices. Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gamut, L.T.F.
1991 Logic, Language and Meaning, vol.2. Intensional Logic and Logical Grammar. The University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar
Gerbrandy, J.
1997 Questions of identity. In P. Dekker, M. Stokhof & Y. Venema (eds.) Proceedings of the 11th Amsterdam Colloquium: 133–138. ILLC Department. Google Scholar
2000 Identity in Epistemic Semantics. In L. Cavendon, P.Blackburn, N. Braisy & A. Shimojima (eds.) Logic, Language and Computation, vol. 3[s1]: 147–159. CSLI. Google Scholar
Gochet, P., E. Gregoire, P. Gribomont, G. Hulin, A. Pirotte, D. Roelants, D. Snyers, A. Thayse, M. Vauclair & P. Wolper
, with the collaboration of Ph. Delsarte 1989 Montague's Semantics. In [s2] A. Thayse (ed.) From Modal Logic to Deductive Database: 115–163. John Wiley & Sons. Google Scholar
Gochet, P. & P. Gribomont
2006 Epistemic Logic. In D. Gabbay & J. Woods (eds.) Handbook of the History of Logic, Twentieth Century Modalities, vol. 7: 99–195. Elsevier. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Groenendijk, J. & M. Stokhof
1991 Dynamic Predicate Logic. Linguistics and Philosophy 14: 39–100. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Groenendijk, J., M. Stokhof & F. Veltman
1996 Coreference and Modality. In S. Lappin (ed.) The Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory: 179–213. [s3]Blackwell. Google Scholar
Hughes, G.E. & M.J. Cresswell
1996 New Introduction to Modal Logic. Methuen. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hintikka, J.
1973 Grammar and logic. In J. Hintikka et al. (eds.) Approaches to natural language: 197–214. Reidel. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hodges, W.
2008 The logic of Quantifiers. In R.E. Auxier & L.E. Hahn (eds.) The Philosophy of Jaakko Hintikka: 521–534. Open Court. Google Scholar
Kaplan, D.
1977 On the Logic of demonstratives. In P. French et al. (eds.) Contemporary perspectives in the philosophy of language: 401–412. University of Open Court. Minnesota Press.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Kripke, S.
1963 Semantic considerations on modal logic. Acta Philosophica Fennica: 83–94. Google Scholar
Lemmon, E.J.
1959 Is there only one correct system of modal logic? The Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume: 23–40. Harrisson. Google Scholar
Lewis, I. & C. Langford
1932 Symbolic logic. Dover. Google Scholar
Montague, R.
(1974) [1970] Formal philosophy. Yale University Press.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Quine, W.V.
1956 Quantifiers and Propositional Attitudes. Journal of Philosophy 53: 177–187. [reprinted in The Ways of Paradox and Other Essays, revised and enlarged ed.: 185–196. Harvard University Press.] DOI logoGoogle Scholar