CFP: Synthese special issue on hyperintensionality

[Clark, Stephen]

________________________________________
From: aphil-l...@anu.edu.au [aphil-l...@anu.edu.au] on behalf of Marie Duzi [marie...@gmail.com]
Sent: 04 September 2012 14:21
*
Synthese** invites papers for a special issue on hyperintensionality*

>
>
> The deadline for submission is *1 March 2013*.
>
>
>
> All papers that make it past an initial screening by the guest editors
> will be sent out to at least two referees for peer review. The formal
> condition on acceptance is that all the reports eventually recommend the
> relevant paper for publication.
>
>
>
> The Editors-in-Chief retain final say over which papers eventually get
> accepted for publication in the special issue.
>
>
>
> This special issue will be guest-edited by Bj�rn Jespersen (Czech Academy
> of Sciences; Technical University of Ostrava, Czech Republic) and Marie
> Du�� (Technical University of Ostrava, Czech Republic).
>
>
>
> Hyperintensionality is in essence a matter of the individuation of
> non-extensional (�intensional�) entities. Following Cresswell, any
> individuation is hyperintensional if it is finer than necessary
> co-extensionality, such that equivalence does not entail identity.
> Importantly, hyperintensional granularity was originally negatively
> defined, leaving room for various positive definitions of its granularity.
> It is well-established among mathematical linguists and philosophical
> logicians that hyperintensional individuation is required at least for
> those attitudes that are not logically closed (especially in order to block
> logical and mathematical omniscience) and linguistic senses (in order to
> differentiate between, say, �*a* is north of *b*� and �*b* is south of *a*�,
> whose truth-conditions converge). It will be relevant to investigate which
> other areas than attitude logic and formal semantics will also need
> hyperintensions.
>
> This special issue will take it for granted that hyperintensional
> individuation is required, so this premise need not be established in the
> submitted papers. There are already several theories around that
> demonstrate how to obtain hyperintensionality. The grand question is how to
> fix an upper bound (or perhaps several upper bounds) on hyperintensional
> individuation such that identity, and not just equivalence, among
> hyperintensions can be determined in a formally satisfactory and
> philosophically well-motivated manner. Such endeavours will probably take
> the form of a definition of a class of structures with an equivalence
> relation defined over them, accompanied by rules of
> conversion/transformation, but this special issue comes with no
> methodological constraints. In fact, the issue very much wishes to chart
> the different ways of going hyperintensional and of addressing the
> granularity question.
>
> Hyperintensionality is not a stand-alone topic. While hyperintensionality
> is, narrowly speaking, a matter of criteria of identity, any worked-out
> theory of hyperintensions will need to take a stand on issues like
> compositionality, structured meaning, and the unity of (structured, hence)
> complex meanings (meaning-endowed particles combining into meaning-endowed
> complexes). This issue will be interested in papers that provide the
> nitty-gritty of the contributors� particular hyperintensional theories,
> though at least a brief comparison with existing rival theories should not
> be missing. Below are some of the key questions that the envisaged issue,
> as a whole, should address, though the contributions are by no means
> restricted to them. Nor is any individual paper, of course, required to
> take a stand on each of the issues below.
>
>
>
> � Positive definitions of hyperintensional granularity (�how hyper
> is hyperintensionality�?)
>
> � Is more than one measure of hyperintensional individuation
> required or desirable?
>
> � Should possible-world intensions be integrated into a full
> hyperintensional semantic theory/calculus? If so, how? In particular, how
> would hyperintensions �determine� possible-world intensions?
>
> � What is the expressive power of one�s hyperintensional theory?
> What are its other meta-theoretical properties, such as soundness and
> completeness?
>
> � Must a hyperintensional theory be a higher-order logic?
>
> � Must or could or should a hyperintensional theory be
> extensional, in the sense of validating Leibniz�s Law, quantifying-in,
> substitutability of equivalents, etc.? Or is the notion of an extensional
> hyperintensional logic an oxymoron?
>
> � Can truth-conditions be hyperintensionally individuated? In
> general, what is the relation between hyperintensions and truth-conditions?
>
> � Which puzzles count as puzzles of hyperintensionality?
> �Woodchuck� / �groundhog�? �Hesperus� / �Phosphorus�? Is the paradox of
> analysis a hyperintensionality puzzle? What about anaphora occurring inside
> attitude reports, presuppositions, verb phrase elision (e.g. �John loves
> his wife, and so does Peter�), non-empirical language (e.g. how to account
> for the semantic difference between �7+5=12� and ��144=12�?),
> counterfactuals, etc.
>
> � It is known how to go hyperintensional in the l-calculus: is it
> possible to go hyperintensional in the e-calculus, for instance, and if
> so, how exactly?
>
> � Will one hyperintensional theory / system / calculus suffice
> both for natural language, scientific language, mathematical language,
> logical language, any kind of language, or is a universal framework not a
> theoretical option, or perhaps an undesirable one?
>
> � How radically must theories of hyperintensionality depart from
> model-theoretic semantics? Are such theories continuous with existing
> model-theoretic ones?
>
> � What would a constructivist / intuitionist theory of
> hyperintensions look like? How would it extend to natural-language
> semantics?
>
> � What, if any, are the connections between hyperintensionality
> and neighbouring notions like structured meaning and procedural semantics?
>
> � If a typed universe is assumed, is a simple or a ramified type
> theory preferable or even unavoidable?
>
>
--
==============================
Doc. Dr. Marie Duzi, CSc.
VSB-Technical University of Ostrava
Department of Computer Science FEI
17. listopadu 15
708 33 Ostrava
Czech Republic
Phone: +420-597 323 273
http://www.cs.vsb.cz/duzi
===============================



Messages to the list are archived at http://listserv.liv.ac.uk/archives/philos-l.html.

Discussions should be moved to chora: enrol via
http://listserv.liv.ac.uk/archives/chora.html.