Limitations of Formal (Logical) Semantics





According to the received view formal semantics applies to natural (ordinary) language to some extent only. It is so because natural language is inherently indefinite, in particular, its expressions are ambiguous, vague and admits departures from syntactic rule. Moreover, intensional contexts occur in ordinary language—it results in limitations of the principle of compositionality. The ordinary conversation appeals to various principles, for instance, Grice’s maxims which exceed logical formalism. Thus, ordinary language cannot be fully formalized. On the other hand, if L is a formal language, its metalanguage ML, must be partially informal—for instance, it contains, terms of ordinary mathematics, especially set theory. Even, if, for instance, due to the technique of aritmetization, ML can be represented in L, such a representation is only local. In fact, this view can be derived from some Tarski’s remarks on the role played by natural language. It is usually assumed that the universality of natural language, is the source of troubles associated with antinomies. It is so this circumstance requires a solution, for example by distinguishing levels of language. However, even if antinomies are excluded, what is informal is prior with respect to what is formal. It shows that formal semantics has limitations even with respect to formalized languages.



Cann, R. (1993). Formal Semantics. An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Carnap, R. (1939). Foundations of Logic and Mathematics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Carnap, R. (1947). Meaning and Necessity. A Study of Semantics and Modal Logic. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Davidson, D. (1967). Truth and Meaning. Synthese, 17, 304–323.

Grice, P. D. (1975). Logic and Conversation. In P. Cole, J. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and Semantics (vol. 3, pp. 41–58). New York: Academic Press.

Kisielewicz, A. (2017). Logika i argumentacja. Praktyczny kurs krytycznego myślenia [Logic and Argumentation. A Practical Course of Critical Thinking]. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.

Kokoszyńska, M. (1936). W sprawie względności i bezwzględności prawdy [Concerning Relativity and Absoluteness of Truth]. Przegląd Filozoficzny, 39, 424–425.

Martin, R. M. (1959). Toward a Systematic Pragmatics. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company.

Montague, R. (1970). Universal Grammar. Theoria, 36, 373–398.

Morris, Ch. (1938), Foundations of the Theory of Signs. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Murawski, R. (1999). Recursive Functions and Metamathematics. Problems of Completeness and Decidability. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Parsons, D. (2016). Intensionality. A Critical Survey. Berlin: Springer.

Pelc, J. (1982). Wstęp do semiotyki [Introduction to Semiotics]. Warszawa: Wiedza Powszechna.

Quine W. V. O. (1953). Notes on the Theory of Reference. In W. V. O. Quine, From a Logical Point of View (pp. 130–138). Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Ryle, G. (1953). Ordinary Language. The Philosophical Review, 42, 301–319.

Tarski, A. (1933). Pojęcie prawdy w językach nauk dedukcyjnych [The Concept of Truth in Formalized Languages]. Warszawa: Towarzystwo Naukowe Warszawskie; Eng. tr.: A. Tarski, Logic, Semantics, Metamathematics (pp. 152–278). Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Tarski, A. (1936). Głos w dyskusji nad referatem M. Kokoszyńskiej [A Contribution to Discussion on M. Kokoszyńska Paper]. Przegląd Filozoficzny, 30, 425.

Tarski, A. (1944). The Semantic Conception of Truth and the Foundations of Semantics. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 4, 341–375.

Trzęsicki, K. (2016). Semiotyka i logika dla kognitywistów [Semiotics and Logic for Cognitive Scientists]. Białystok: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu w Białymstoku.

Van Benthem, J. (2002). A Manual of Intensional Logic. Stanford: Centre for the Study of Language and Information.

Woleński, J. (2020). Semantics and Truth. Cham, Switzerland: Springer Nature.