Supervenience, Dependence, Disjunction

• Authors: Humberstone Lloyd
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

This paper explores variations on and connections between the topics mentioned in its title, using as something of an anchor the discussion in Valentin Goranko and Antti Kuusisto’s “Logics for propositional determinacy and independence”, a venture into what the authors call the logic of determinacy, which they contrast with (a demodalized version of) Jouko Väänänen’s modal dependence logic. As they make clear in their discussion, these logics are closely connected with the topics of noncontingency and supervenience. Two opening sections of the present paper address some of these connections, including related earlier logical work by the present author as well as very recent work by Jie Fan. The Väänänen-inspired treatment is presented in a third section, and then, in Sections 4 and 5, as a kind of centerpiece for the discussion, we follow Goranko and Kuusisto in elaborating one principal reason offered for preferring their own approach over that treatment, which concerns some anomalies over the behaviour of disjunction in the latter treatment. Sections 6 and 7 look at dependence and (several different versions of) disjunction in inquisitive logic, especially as presented by Ivano Ciardelli. Section 8 revisits the less formal property-supervenience literature with issues from the first two sections of the paper in mind, and we conclude with a Postscript addressing a further conceptual issue pertaining to the relation between modal and quantificational dependence logics.

Keywords

EN

Modal dependence logic; disjunction; supervenience, inquisitive logic; contingency; whether-disjunction; conservative extension

• Publisher: Uniwersytet Mikołaja Kopernika (Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń)
• Journal: Logic and Logical Philosophy
• Year: 2019
• Volume: 28
• Issue: 1
• Pages: 3-135

Dates

published

2019-03-15

Contributors

author

Humberstone Lloyd

• Department of Philosophy School of Philosophical, Historical and International Studies Monash University Clayton, Victoria 3800, Australia

References

• Abramsky, S., and J. Väänänen, 2009, “From IF to BI: A tale of dependence and separation”, Synthese 167: 285–308.DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11229-008-9415-6
• Aher, M., 2011, “Free choice in deontic inquisitive semantics (DIS)”, pages 22–31 in M. Aloni, V. Kimmelman, F. Roelofsen, G.W. Sassoon, K. Schulz, and M. Westera (eds.), Logic, Language and Meaning (18th Amsterdam Colloquium), Lecture Notes in Computer Science #7218, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-31482-7_3
• Alonso-Ovalle, L., 2005, “Distributing the disjuncts over the modal space”, pages 75–86 in L. Bateman and C. Ussery (eds.), Proceedings of the North East Linguistics Society, vol. 35, Amherst, Mass., Graduate Linguistic Student Association (U. Mass.) Publications. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1.1.472.6497
• Bacon, J., “Supervenience, necessary coextension and reducibility”, Philosophical Studies 49: 163–176. (Reprinted as Chapter 13 in Kim [2002].) DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00354332
• Bacon, J., 1995, “Weak supervenience supervenes”, pages 101–109 in [Savellos and Yalçin, 1995]. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511663857.005
• Bader, R.M., 2012, “Supervenience and infinitary property-forming operations”, Philosophical Studies 160: 415–423. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11098-011-9727-0
• Bartsch, R., 1986, “The construction of properties under perspectives”, Journal of Semantics 5: 293–320. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jos/5.4.293
• Bennett, K., 2004, “Global supervenience and dependence”, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 68: 501–529. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1933-1592.2004.tb00364.x
• Bigelow, J., 1988, The Reality of Numbers: A Physicalist’s Philosophy of Mathematics, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
• Blackburn, S., 1971, “Moral realism”, pages 101–124 in J. Casey (ed.), Morality and Moral Reasoning, Methuen, London.
• Blackburn, S., 1984, Spreading the Word, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
• Blackburn, S., 1985, “Supervenience revisited”, pages 47–67 in I. Hacking (ed.), Exercises in Analysis: Essays by Students of Casimir Lewy, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. (Reprinted as Chapter 2 in Kim [2002].)
• Bonevac, D., 1991, “Semantics and supervenience”, Synthese 87: 331–361. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00499816
• Brueckner, A., 2002, “Blackburn’s modal argument against moral realism”, Theoria 68: 67–70. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-2567.2002.tb00120.x
• Brünnler, K., 2009, “Deep sequent systems for modal logic’, Archive for Mathematical Logic 48: 551–577. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00153-009-0137-3
• Burgess, J.P., 2003, “A remark on Henkin sentences and their contraries”, Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 44: 185–188. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1305/ndjfl/1091030856
• Cariani, F., 2013, ““Ought” and resolution semantics”, Noûs 47: 534–558. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0068.2011.00839.x
• Chalmers, D.J., 1996, The Conscious Mind, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
• Chalmers, D.J., 2004, “Epistemic two-dimensional semantics”, Philosophical Studies 118: 153–226. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/B:PHIL.0000019546.17135.e0
• Ciardelli, I., 2009, “Inquisitive semantics and intermediate logics”, MSc Thesis, University of Amsterdam; Institute for Logic, Language and Computation, Amsterdam.
• Ciardelli, I., 2016a, Questions in Logic, Institute for Logic, Language and Computation (ILLC Dissertation Series), Amsterdam.
• Ciardelli, I., 2016b, “Dependency as question entailment”, pages 129–181 in S. Abramsky et al. (eds.), Dependence Logic, Springer, Cham (Switzerland). DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-31803-5_8
• Ciardelli I., J. Groenendijk and F. Roelofsen, 2014, “Information, issues, and attention”, pages 128–166 in D. Gutzmann, J. Köpping and C. Meier (eds.), Approaches to Meaning: Composition, Values, and Interpretation, Brill, Leiden. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/9789004279377_007
• Ciardelli, I., J. Groenendijk and F. Roelofsen, 2015a, “On the semantics and logic of declaratives and interrogatives”, Synthese 192: 1689–1728. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11229-013-0352-7
• Ciardelli, I., J. Groenendijk, and F. Roelofsen, 2015b, “Inquisitive semantics”, ESSLLI Lecture notes.
• Ciardelli, I., and F. Roelofsen, 2011, “Inquisitive logic”,Journal of Philosophical Logic 40: 55–94. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10992-010-9142-6
• Correia, F., 2010, “Grounding and truth-functions”, Logique et Analyse 53: 251–279.
• Cresswell, M.J., 1965, “Another basis for S4”, Logique et Analyse 8: 191–195.
• Cresswell, M.J., 1988, “Necessity and contingency”, Studia Logica 47: 145–149. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00370288
• Dancy, J., 1981 “On moral properties”, Mind 90: 367–385. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mind/XC.359.367
• Dancy, J., 2004, Ethics Without Principles, Oxford University Press, Oxford. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/0199270023.001.0001
• Davies, M., 1992, “Perceptual content and local supervenience”, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 92: 21–45. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/aristotelian/92.1.21
• Davies, M., and L. Humberstone, 1980, “Two notions of necessity”, Philosophical Studies 38: 1–30. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00354523
• DePaul, M.R., 1987, “Supervenience and moral dependence”, Philosophical Studies 51: 425–439. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00354046
• Divers, J., 1996, “Supervenience for operators”, Synthese 106: 103–112. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00413616
• Došen, K., 1989, “Sequent systems and groupoid models: II”, Studia Logica 48: 41–65. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00370633
• Dowty, D.R., 1977, “Toward a semantic analysis of verb aspect and the English ‘imperfective’ progressive”, Linguistics and Philosophy 1: 45–77. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9780470758335.ch11
• Dreier, J.A., 1990, “Internalism and speaker relativism’, Ethics 101: 6–26. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/293257
• Dreier, J.A., 1992, “The supervenience argument against modal realism”, Southern Journal of Philosophy 30: 13–38. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.2041-6962.1992.tb00636.x
• Dreier, J.A., 2015a, ‘Explaining the quasi-real”, Chapter 11 in R. ShaferLandau (ed.), Oxford Studies in Metaethics, Vol. 10, Oxford University Press, Oxford. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198738695.001.0001
• Dreier, J.A., 2015b, “Another world: the metaethics and metametaethics of reasons fundamentalism”, pages 155–171 in R. Johnson and M. Smith (eds.), Passions and Projections: Themes from the Philosophy of Simon Blackburn, Oxford University Press, Oxford. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198723172.003.0009
• Dummett, M., 1981, Frege: Philosophy of Language (Second Edn.) Duckworth, London.
• Ebbing, J., L. Hella, A. Meier, J.-S. Müller, J. Virtema and H. Vollmer, 2013, “Extended modal dependence logic EMDL”, pages 126–137 in L. Libkin, U. Kohlenbach and R. de Queiroz (eds.), Logic, Language, Information, and Computation (20th International Workshop, WoLLIC 2013, Darmstadt, Germany), LNCS 8071, Springer-Verlag, Berlin. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-39992-3_13
• Elliot, R., 1987, “Moral realism and the modal argument”, Analysis 47: 133–137. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/analys/47.3.133
• Fagin, R., 1977, “Functional dependencies in a relational database and propositional logic”, IBM Journal of Research and Development 21: 534–544. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1147/rd.216.0534
• Fan, J., 2016, “A modal logic of supervenience”, to appear in Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic. arXiv:1611.04740v1
• Fine, K., 2014, “Truth-maker semantics for intuitionistic logic”, Journal of Philosophical Logic 43: 549–577. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10992-013-9281-7
• Font, J.M., R. Jansana and D. Pigozzi, 2006, “A survey of abstract algebraic logic”, Studia Logica 74: 13–97. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1024621922509
• Galliani, P., 2013a, “The dynamification of modal dependence logic”, Journal of Logic, Language and Information 22: 269–295. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10849-013-9175-7
• Galliani, P., 2013b, “Epistemic operators in dependence logic”, Studia Logica 101: 367–397. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11225-013-9478-3
• Galliani, P., and J. Väänänen, 2014, “On dependence logic”, pages 101–110 in A. Baltag and S. Smets (eds.), Johan van Benthem on Logic and Information Dynamics, Springer, Cham (Switzerland). DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-06025-5_4
• Geurts, B., 2005, “Entertaining alternatives: disjunctions as modals”, Natural Language Semantics 13: 383–410. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11050-005-2052-4
• Gibbard, A., 1992, Wise Choices, Apt Feelings: A Theory of Normative Judgment, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
• Gibbard, A., 2003, Thinking How to Live, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
• Glanzberg, M., 2001, “Supervenience and infinitary logic”, Noûs 35: 419–439. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/0029-4624.00304
• Goldstick, D., and B. O’Neil, 1988 “‘Truer’”, Philosophy of Science 55: 583–597. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/289462
• Goodman, N., 1977,The Structure of Appearance (Third edn.), D. Reidel, Dordrecht. (First Edn. 1951.) DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-1184-6
• Goranko, V., and A. Kuusisto, 2018, “Logics for propositional determinacy and independence”, Review of Symbolic Logic (published online). DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1755020317000272
• Grimes, T.R., 1988, “The myth of supervenience”, Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 69: 152–160. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0114.1988.tb00305.x
• Groenendijk, J., 2009,“Inquisitive semantics: Two possibilities for disjunction’, pages 80–94 in P. Bosch, D. Gabelaia and J. Lang (eds.), Logic, Language, and Computation: 7th International Tbilisi Symposium on Logic, Language, and Computation, (‘TbiLLC 2007’, Tbilisi, Georgia, October 1–5, 2007), LNAI #5422, Springer, Berlin. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-00665-4_8
• Groenendijk, J., and F. Roelofsen, 2010, “Radical inquisitive semantics”, Presented at the Sixth International Symposium on Logic, Cognition, and Communication at the University of Latvia. Online~version Hare, R.M., 1952, The Language of Morals, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
• Hare, R.M., 1984, “Supervenience”, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Supplementary 58: 1–16. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/aristoteliansupp/58.1.1
• Harrison, G., 2013, “The moral supervenience thesis is not a conceptual truth”, Analysis 73: 62–68. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/analys/ans140
• Harrison, G., 2017, “The Dubious moral supervenience thesis”, pages 89–104 in B. Brożek, A. Rotolo and J. Stelmach (eds.), Supervenience and Normativity, Law and Philosophy, Springer, Dordrecht. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-61046-7_5
• Heil, J., 1995, “Supervenience Redux”, pages 158–169 in [Savellos and Yalçin, 1995]. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511663857.009
• Hella, L., K. Luosto, K. Sano and J. Virtema, 2014, “The expressive power of modal dependence logic”, pages 294–312 in R. Goré, B. Kooi and A. Kurucz (eds.), Advances in Modal Logic, vol. 10, College Publications, London.
• Hellman, G., 1985, “Determination and logical truth”, Journal of Philosophy 82: 607–616. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2026415
• Hellman, G., 1992, “Supervenience/determination a two-way street? Yes, but one of the ways is the wrong way!”, Journal of Philosophy 89: 42–47. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2026892
• Hellman, G., and F. 1975, Wilson, “Ontology, determination, and reduction”, Journal of Philosophy 72: 551–564. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2025067
• Hintikka, J., 1972, “Leibniz on plenitude, relations, and the ‘Reign of Law’”, pages ‘55–190 in H. Frankfurt (ed.), Leibniz: A Collection of Critical Essays, Anchor Books, NY. Reprinted in pp.259–286 of S. Knuuttila (ed.), Reforging the Great Chain of Being, Reidel, Dordrecht 1981. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-7662-8_7
• Hintikka, J., 1996, The Principles of Mathematics Revisited, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511624919
• Hintikka, J., and L. Carlson, 1979, “Conditionals, generic quantifiers, and other applications of subgames”, pages 179–214 in Saarinen [1979]. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-9775-2_1
• Hintikka, J., and J. Kulas, 1983, The Game of Language: Studies in Game-Theoretical Semantics and its Applications, Reidel, Dordrecht. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-4108-2
• Hintikka, J., and G. Sandu, 1989, “Informational independence as a semantical phenomenon”, pages 571–589 in J.E. Fenstad, I.T. Frolov and R. Hilpinen (eds.), Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science, vol. 8, Elsevier, Amsterdam. (Reprinted as Chapter 3 in Hintikka, Paradigms for Language Theory and Other Essays, Kluwer, Dordrecht 1998.) DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0049-237X(08)70066-1
• Hodges, W., 1997, “Compositional semantics for a language of imperfect information”, Logic Journal of the IGPL 5: 539–563. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jigpal/5.4.539
• Hodges, W., 2007, “Logics of imperfect information: Why sets of assignments?”, pages 117–133 in J. van Benthem, D. Gabbay and B. Löwe (eds.), Interactive Logic: Procs. 7th Augustus de Morgan Workshop, London, Amsterdam University Press, Amsterdam.
• Hoeltje, M., B. Schnieder and A. Steinberg (eds.), 2013, Varieties of Dependence: Ontological Dependence, Grounding, Supervenience, Response-Dependence, Philosophia Verlag, Munich.
• Holliday, W.H., 2014, “Partiality and adjointness in modal logic”, pages 313–332 in R. Goré, B. Kooi and A. Kurucz (eds.), Advances in Modal Logic, vol. 10, College Publications, London.
• Holliday, W.H., 2016, “Possibility frames and forcing for modal logic”, Working Papers of the Group in Logic and the Methodology of Science, UC Berkeley. http://escholarship.org/uc/item/9v11r0dq
• Horgan, T., 1993, “From supervenience to superdupervenience: Meeting the demands of a material world’, Mind 102: 555–586. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mind/102.408.555
• Horgan, T., and M. Timmons, 1992, “Troubles on moral twin earth: Moral queerness revived”, Synthese 92: 221–260. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00414300
• Humberstone, L., 1974, “Topics in tense logic”, B. Phil. Thesis, University of Oxford (supervisor: D.S. Scott).
• Humberstone, L., 1979, “Interval semantics for tense logic: Some remarks”, Journal of Philosophical Logic 8: 171–196. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00258426
• Humberstone, L., 1981, “From worlds to possibilities”, Journal of Philosophical Logic 10: 313–339. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00293423
• Humberstone, L., 1982, “Scope and subjunctivity”, Philosophia 12: 99–126. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02379362
• Humberstone, L., 1986, “Extensionality in sentence position”, Journal of Philosophical Logic: 15: 27–54. See also “The Lattice of extensional connectives: A correction” Journal of Philosophical Logic 17 (1988): 221–223. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00250548 and for the correction DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00247953
• Humberstone, L., 1987, “Critical Notice of [Hintikka and Kulas, 1983]”, Mind 96: 99–107. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mind/XCVI.381.99
• Humberstone, L., 1988a, “Operational semantics for positive R”, Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 29: 61–80. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1305/ndjfl/1093637771
• Humberstone, L., 1988b, “Heterogeneous logic”, Erkenntnis 29: 395–435. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00183072
• Humberstone, L., 1991, “A study of some ‘separated’ conditions on binary relations”, Theoria 57: 1–16. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-2567.1991.tb00538.x
• Humberstone, L., 1992, “Some structural and logical aspects of the notion of supervenience”, Logique et Analyse 35: 101–137.
• Humberstone, L., 1993, “Functional dependencies, supervenience, and consequence relations”, Journal of Logic, Language and Information 2: 309–336. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01181684
• Humberstone, L., 1995a, “The logic of non-contingency”, Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 36: 214–229. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1305/ndjfl/1040248455
• Humberstone, L., 1995b, “Comparatives and the reducibility of relations”, Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 76: 117–141. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0114.1995.tb00143.x
• Humberstone, L., 1996a, “Classes of valuations closed under operations Galois-dual to Boolean sentence connectives”, Publications of the Research Institute for Mathematical Sciences, Kyoto University 32: 9–84. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.2977/prims/1195163180
• Humberstone, L., 1996b, “Intrinsic/extrinsic”, Synthese 108: 205–267. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00413498
• Humberstone, L., 1996c, “A study in philosophical taxonomy’, Philosophical Studies 83: 121–169. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00354286
• Humberstone, L., 1997, “Singulary extensional connectives: A closer look”, Journal of Philosophical Logic 26: 341–356. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1004240612163
• Humberstone, L., 1998a, “Note on supervenience and definability”, Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 39: 243–252. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1305/ndjfl/1039293066
• Humberstone, L., 1998b, “‘Yes, I agree’”, Studies in Language 22: 619–659. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/sl.22.3.05hum
• Humberstone, L., 2000, “Parts and partitions”, Theoria 66: 41–82. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-2567.2000.tb01144.x
• Humberstone, L., 2002, “The modal logic of agreement and noncontingency”, Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 43: 95–127. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1305/ndjfl/1071509431
• Humberstone, L., 2004a, “Two-dimensional adventures”, Philosophical Studies 118: 17–65. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/B:PHIL.0000019542.43440.d1
• Humberstone, L., 2004b, “Archetypal forms of inference”, Synthese 141: 45–76. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/B:SYNT.0000035850.89516.e1
• Humberstone, L., 2005a, “Modality”, pages 534–614, Chapter 20, in F.C. Jackson and M. Smith (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Contemporary Philosophy, Oxford University Press, Oxford and New York. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199234769.003.0020
• Humberstone, L., 2005b, “Logical discrimination”, pages 207–228 in J.-Y. Béziau (ed.), Logica Universalis: Towards a General Theory of Logic, Birkhäuser, Basel. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-7643-8354-1_12
• Humberstone, L., 2011, The Connectives, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
• Humberstone, L., 2013, “Aggregation and idempotence”, Review of Symbolic Logic 6: 680–708. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S175502031300021X
• Humberstone, L., 2016, Philosophical Applications of Modal Logic, College Publications, London.
• Jackson, F., 1998, From Metaphysics to Ethics: A Defence of Conceptual Analysis, Oxford University Press, Oxford. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/0198250614.001.0001
• Janssen, T., 2002, “Independent choices and the interpretation of IF logic”, Journal of Logic, Language and Information 11: 367–387. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1015542413718
• Japaridze, G., 2006, “Propositional computability logic I”, ACM Transactions on Computational Logic 7: 302–330. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1131313.1131318
• Japaridze, G, 2009, “In the beginning was game semantics”, pages 249–350 in O. Majer, A.-V. Pietarinen, Ahti-Veikko and T. Tulenheimo (eds.), Games: Unifying Logic, Language, and Philosophy, Springer Dordrecht. DOI:
• Karmo, T., 1988, “Some valid (but no sound) arguments trivially span the ‘Is’–‘Ought’ Gap”, Mind 97: 252–257. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mind/XCVII.386.252
• Kenny, A., 1963, Action, Emotion and Will, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London.
• Khamara, E.J., 1988, “Indiscernibles and the absolute theory of space and time”, Studia Leibnitiana 20: 140–59.
• Kim, J., 1978, “Supervenience and nomological incommensurables”, American Philosophical Quarterly 15: 149–156.
• Kim, J., 1984a, “Supervenience and supervenient causation”, Southern Journal of Philosophy 22: 45–56; Supplement: 1983 Spindel Conference (ed. T. Horgan). DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.2041-6962.1984.tb01548.x
• Kim, J., 1984b, “Concepts of supervenience”, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 45: 153–176. (Reprinted as Chapter 4 in [Kim, 1993a] and as Chapter 3 in [Kim, 2002].) DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2107423
• Kim, J., 1990, “Supervenience as a philosophical concept”, Metaphilosophy 21: 1–27. (Reprinted as Chapter 8 in [Kim, 1993a].) DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9973.1990.tb00830.x
• Kim, J., 1993a, Supervenience and Mind: Selected Philosophical Essays, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511625220
• Kim, J., 1993b, “Postscripts on supervenience”, Chapter 9 in [Kim, 1993a] (also as Chapter 5 in [Kim, 2002]). DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511625220.010
• Kim, J. (ed.), 2002, Supervenience, Ashgate Dartmouth, Aldershot.
• Klagge, J.C., 1984, ‘An alleged difficulty concerning moral properties”, Mind 93: 370–380. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mind/XCIII.371.370
• Klagge, J.C., 1987, “Supervenience: Perspectives v. possible worlds’, Philosophical Quarterly 37: 312–315. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2220401
• Klagge, J.C., 1995, “Supervenience: Model theory or metaphysics?”, pages 60–72 in [Savellos and Yalçin, 1995]. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511663857.003
• Komori, Y., 1986, “A new semantics for intuitionistic predicate logic”, Studia Logica 45: 9–17. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01881545
• Kontinen, J., and J. Väänänen, 2011, “A remark on negation in dependence logic”, Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 52: 55–65. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1215/00294527-2010-036
• Kremer, M., 1988, “Kripke and the logic of truth”, Journal of Philosophical Logic 17: 225–278. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00247954
• Kremer, P., 2016, “The revision theory of truth”, in E.N. Zalta (ed.), Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2016 Edition), https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2016/entries/truth-revision/
• Langton, R., and D. Lewis, 1998, “Defining ‘Intrinsic’”, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 58: 333–345. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2653512
• Leitgeb, H., 2005 “What truth depends on”, Journal of Philosophical Logic 34: 155–192. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10992-004-3758-3
• Leuenberger, S., 2008, “Supervenience in metaphysics”, Philosophy Compass 3: 749–762. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-9991.2008.00150.x
• Leuenberger, S., 2009, “What is global supervenience?”, Synthese 170: 115–129. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11229-008-9360-4
• Leuenberger, S., 2013, “Supervenience among classes of relations”, 325–346 in [Hoeltje et al., 2013].
• Lewis, D., 1973, Counterfactuals, Basil Blackwell, Oxford.
• Lewis, D., 1974, “’Tensions”, pages 49–61 in M.K. Munitz and P.K. Unger (eds.), Semantics and Philosophy, New York University Press, New York. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/0195032047.003.0014
• Lewis, D., 1983a, “Extrinsic properties”, Philosophical Studies 44: 197–200. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00354100
• Lewis, D., 1983b, “New work for a theory of universals”, Australasian Journal of Philosophy 61: 343–377. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00048408312341131
• Lewis, D., 1986, On the Plurality of Worlds, Blackwell, Oxford.
• Lewis, D., 1988, “Statements Partly About Observation”, Philosophical Papers 17: 1–31. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/05568648809506282
• Lewis, D., 2001, “Redefining ‘intrinsic’”, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 63: 381–398. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1933-1592.2001.tb00111.x
• Lewis, HA., 1985, “Is the mental supervenient on the physical?”, pages 159–172 in B. Vermazen and M.B. Hintikka (eds.), Essays on Davidson, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
• McCawley, J.D., 1993, Everything that Linguists have Always Wanted to Know about Logic – But were ashamed to ask, University of Chicago Press, Chicago. (First Edn. 1981.)
• McFetridge, I.G., 1985 “Supervenience, realism, necessity”, Philosophical Quarterly 35: 245–258. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2218904
• McGinn, C., 1980, “Philosophical materialism”, Synthese 44: 173–206. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00413406
• McKinsey, J.C.C., 1945, ‘On the syntactical construction of systems of modal logic’, Journal of Symbolic Logic 10: 83–94. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2267027
• McLaughlin, B.P., 1995, “Varieties of supervenience”, pages 16–59 in [Savellos and Yalçin, 1995]. (Reprinted as Chapter 8 in [Kim, 2002].) DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511663857.002
• McLaughlin, B., and K. Bennett, 2014, “Supervenience”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2014 Edition), E.N. Zalta (ed.), https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2014/entries/supervenience/
• Michaelis, L.A., 1993, “‘Continuity’ within three scalar models: The polysemy of adverbial still”, Journal of Semantics 10: 193–237. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jos/10.3.193
• Miller, R.B., 1990, “Supervenience is a two-way street”, Journal of Philosophy 87: 695–701. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2026976
• Montgomery, H., and R. Routley, 1966, “Contingency and non-contingency bases for normal modal logics”, Logique et Analyse 9: 318–328.
• Moser, P.K., and J.D. Trout, 1995, “Physicalism, supervenience, and dependence”, pages 87–217 in [Savellos and Yalçin, 1995]. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511663857.011
• Moyer, M., 2008, “Weak and global supervenience are strong”, Philosophical Studies 138: 125–150. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11098-006-9002-y
• Noonan, H.W., 1987, “Supervenience”, Philosophical Quarterly 37: 78–85. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2220062
• Oddie, G., 1987, “Truthlikeness and the convexity of propositions”, pages 197–217 in T. Kuipers (ed.), What is Closer-to-the-Truth?, Rodopi, Amsterdam: Rodopi.
• Oddie, G., and P. Tichý, 1990, “Resplicing properties in the supervenience base”, Philosophical Studies 58, 3: 259–269. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00368286
• Ewa Orłowska, E., 1985, “Semantics of nondeterministic possible worlds”, Bulletin of the Polish Academy of Sciences – Mathematics 33: 453–458.
• Patton, T., 1989, “On Humberstone’s semantics for branching quantifiers”, Mind 98: 429–433. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mind/XCVIII.391.429
• Paull, R.C., and T.R. Sider, 1992, “In defense of global supervenience”, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 52: 833–854. (Reprinted as Chapter 12 in [Kim, 2002].) DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2107913
• Petrie, B., 1987 “Global supervenience and reduction”, Philosophy and Phenomenonological Research 48: 119–130. http://dx.doi.org/DOI: 10.2307/2107710
• Pigden, C.R., 2012, “Identifying goodness”, Australasian Journal of Philosophy 90: 93–109. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00048402.2011.560167
• Połacik, T., and L. Humberstone, 2018, “Classically archetypal rules”, to appear in Review of Symbolic Logic.
• Post, J.F., 1984, “Comments on Teller”, Southern Journal of Philosophy 22: 163–167; Supplement: 1983 Spindel Conference (ed. T. Horgan). DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.2041-6962.1984.tb01556.x
• Post, J.F., 1995, “‘Global’ supervenient determination: Too permissive?”, pages 73–100 in [Savellos and Yalçin, 1995]. (Reprinted as Chapter 11 in [Kim, 2002].) DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511663857.004
• Priest, G., 2006, Doubt Truth to be a Liar, Oxford University Press, Oxford. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/0199263280.001.0001
• Punčochář, V., 2015, “Weak negation in inquisitive semantics”, Journal of Logic, Language and Information 24: 323–355. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10849-015-9219-2
• Rabinowicz, W., 1979, Universalizability: A Study in Morals and Metaphysics, Reidel, Dordrecht. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-9484-3
• Rauszer, C.M., 1985, “An equivalence between theory of functional dependencies and a fragment of intuitionistic logic”, Bull. Polish Acad. Sci. Math. 33: 571–579.
• Read, S., 1981 “Review of [Saarinen, 1979]”, Philosophical Books 22: 40–42.
• Roelofsen, F., 2013, “Algebraic foundations for the semantic treatment of inquisitive content’’, Synthese 190: 79–102. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11229-013-0282-4
• Roelofsen, F., 2016, “Two alternatives for disjunction: an inquisitive reconciliation”, to appear in E. Onea, K. von Heusinger, and M. Zimmermann (eds.), Questions in Discourse, Brill Publishers, Leiden.
• Rotolo, A., 2017, “Logics for normative supervenience”, pages 1–23 in B. Brożek, A. Rotolo and J. Stelmach (eds.), Supervenience and Normativity, Law and Philosophy, Springer, Dordrecht. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-61046-7_1
• Saarinen, E. (ed.), 1979, Game Theoretical Semantics, Reidel, Dordrecht. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-4108-2
• Sagiv, Y., C. Delobel, D.S. Parker and R. Fagin, 1981, “An equivalence between relational database dependencies and a fragment of propositional logic”, Journal of the Association for Computing Machinery 28: 435–453. (Correction ibid. 34 (1987): 1016–1018.) DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/322261.322263 and for Correction: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/31846.31853
• Sahlqvist, H., 1975, “Completeness and correspondence in the first and second order semantics for modal logic”, pages 110–143 in S. Kanger (ed.), Procs. of the Third Scandinavian Logic Symposium, Uppsala 1973, North-Holland, Amsterdam. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0049-237X(08)70728-6
• Sano, K., 2015, “Avoiding impossibility theorems in radical inquisitive semantics”, pages 107–120 in S. Ju, H. Liu and H. Ono (eds.), Modality, Semantics and Interpretations, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-47197-5_6
• Savellos, E.A., and Ü. Yalçin (eds.), 1995, Supervenience: New Essays, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511663857
• Schmitt, J., and M. Schroeder, 2011, “Supervenience arguments under relaxed assumptions”, Philosophical Studies 155: 133–160. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11098-010-9569-1
• Schnieder, B., 2008, “Truth-functionality”, Review of Symbolic Logic 1: 64–72. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1755020308080052
• Schroeder, M., 2014, Explaining the Reasons We Share: Explanation and Expression in Ethics, vol. 1, Oxford University Press, Oxford. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198713807.001.0001
• Shafer-Landau, R., 1994, “Supervenience and moral realism”, Ratio (new series) 7: 145–152. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9329.1994.tb00060.x
• Shagrir, O., 2013, “Concepts of supervenience revisited”, Erkenntnis 78: 469–485. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10670-012-9410-7
• Simons, M., 2005, “Dividing things up: The semantics of or and the modal/or interaction”, Natural Language Semantics 13: 271–316. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11050-004-2900-7
• Singh, R., 2008, “On the interpretation of disjunction: Asymmetric, incremental, and eager for inconsistency”, Linguistics and Philosophy 31: 245–260. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10988-008-9038-x
• Smiley, T., 1962, “The independence of connectives”, Journal of Symbolic Logic 27: 426–436. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2964550
• Smiley, T., 1996, “Rejection”, Analysis 56: 1–9. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/analys/56.1.1
• Sobel, J.H., 2001, “Blackburn’s problem: On its not insignificant residue”, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 62: 361–383. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1933-1592.2001.tb00060.x
• Sonderholm, J., 2007, “A logical response to Blackburn’s supervenience argument”, Sats – Nordic Journal of Philosophy 8: 178–185.
• Stalnaker, R.C., 2003, “Varieties of supervenience”, pages 86–108 in R. Stalnaker, Ways a World Might Be: Metaphysical and Anti-Metaphysical Essays, Oxford University Press, Oxford. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/0199251487.001.0001 (Expanded version of a paper first published in 1996. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2216245)
• Steinberg, A., 2013, “Supervenience: A survey”, pages 123–166 in [Hoeltje et al., 2013].
• Steinberg, A., 2014, “Defining Global Supervenience”, Erkenntnis 79: 367–380. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10670-013-9498-4
• Taylor, B., 1985, Modes of Occurrence: Verbs, Adverbs and Events, Basil Blackwell, Oxford.
• Teller, P., 1984, “Comments on Kim’s paper”, Southern Journal of Philosophy 22: 57–61; Supplement: 1983 Spindel Conference (ed. T. Horgan). DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.2041-6962.1984.tb01549.x
• Teller, P., 1985, “Is supervenience just disguised reduction?”, Southern Journal of Philosophy 23: 93–99. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.2041-6962.1985.tb00379.x
• Tennant, N., 1985, “Beth’s theorem and reductionism”, Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 66: 342–54. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0114.1985.tb00258.x
• Tennant, N., 1998, “Games some people would have all of us play: Critical study of Hintikka [Hintikka, 1996]”, Philosophia Mathematica 6: 90–115. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/philmat/6.1.90
• Thomason, R.H., and H. Leblanc, 1967, “All or none: A novel choice of primitives for elementary logic”, Journal of Symbolic Logic 32: 345–351. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2270776
• Tulenheimo, T., 2016, “Independence friendly logic”, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2016 Edition), E.N. Zalta (ed.), https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2016/entries/logic-if/
• Tulenheimo, T., and M. Sevenster, 2007, “Approaches to independence friendly modal logic”, pages 247–280 in J. van Benthem, D. Gabbay, B. Löwe (eds.), Interactive Logic: Procs. 7th Augustus de Morgan Workshop, Amsterdam University Press, Amsterdam.
• Väänänen, J., 2007a, Dependence Logic: A New Approach to Independence Friendly Logic, London Mathematical Society student texts #70, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
• Väänänen, J., 2007b, “Team logic”, pages 281–302 in J. van Benthem, D. Gabbay, and B. Löwe (eds.), Interactive Logic: Procs. 7th Augustus de Morgan Workshop, London, Amsterdam University Press, Amsterdam.
• Väänänen, J., 2008, “Modal dependence logic”, pages 237–254 in K.R. Apt and R. van Rooij (eds.), New Perspectives on Games and Interaction, Amsterdam University Press, Amsterdam. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5117/9789089640574
• Väänänen, J., and W. Hodges, 2010, “Dependence of variables construed as an atomic formula”, Annals of Pure and Applied Logic 161: 817–828. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apal.2009.06.009
• van Benthem, J., 2001, “Correspondence theory”, pages 325–408 in D. Gabbay and F. Guenthner (eds.), Handbook of Philosophical Logic, Second Edition, vol. 3, Kluwer, Dordrecht. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-0454-0_4
• van Benthem, J., 2005, “Minimal predicates, fixed-points, and definability”, Journal of Symbolic Logic 70: 696–712. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.2178/jsl/1122038910
• Van Cleve, J., 1990, “Supervenience and closure”, Philosophical Studies 58: 225–238. (Reprinted as Chapter 14 in [Kim, 2002].) DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00368283
• Van Fraassen, B., 1969, “Facts and tautological entailments”, Journal of Philosophy 66: 477–487. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2024563
• Verkuyl, H.J., 1989, “Aspectual classes and aspectual composition”, Linguistics and Philosophy 12: 39–94. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00627398
• Verkuyl, H.J., 2005, “Aspectual composition: Surveying the ingredients”, pages 19–39 in H.J. Verkuyl, H. de Swart and A. van Hout (eds.), Perspectives on Aspect, Springer, Dordrecht. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-3232-3_2
• Weatherson, B., 2001, “Intrinsic properties and combinatorial principles”, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 63: 365–380. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1933-1592.2001.tb00110.x
• Brian Weatherson and Dan Marshall, 2014, “Intrinsic vs. extrinsic properties”, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2014 Edition), E.N. Zalta (ed.), https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2014/entries/intrinsic-extrinsic/
• Wedgwood, R., 2000, “The price of non-reductive physicalism”, Noûs 34: 400–421. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/0029-4624.00217
• Wedgwood, R., 2007, The Nature of Normativity, Oxford University Press, Oxford. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199251315.001.0001
• Wehmeier, K.F., 2004, “Wittgensteinian predicate logic”, Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 45: 1–11. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1305/ndjfl/1094155275
• Wehmeier, K.F., 2012, “How to live without identityand why”, Australasian Journal of Philosophy 90: 761–777. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00048402.2011.627927
• Williamson, T., 2001, “Ethics, supervenience and Ramsey sentences”, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 62: 625–630. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1933-1592.2001.tb00079.x
• Wilson, A., 2018, “Classifying Dependencies”, to appear in G. Darby, D. Glick and A. Marmodoro (eds.), The Foundation of Reality: Fundamentality, Space and Time, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
• Wilson, J., 2014, “No work for a theory of grounding”, Inquiry 57: 535–579. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0020174X.2014.907542
• Wiredu, J.E., 1979, “On the necessity of S4”, Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 20: 689–694. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1305/ndjfl/1093882679
• Wright, G., 1985, “Review of [Blackburn, 1984]”, Mind 94: 310–319. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mind/XCIV.374.310
• Yablo, S., 1982, “Grounding, dependence, and paradox”, Journal of Philosophical Logic 11: 117–137. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00302341
• Yablo, S., 2014, Aboutness, Princeton University Press, Princeton NJ. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/9781400845989
• Yang, F., 2014, “On extensions and variants of dependence logic – A study of intuitionistic connectives in the team semantics setting”, PhD Thesis, University of Helsinki.
• Yang, F., 2017, “Modal dependence logics: Axiomatizations and model-theoretic properties”, Logic Journal of the IGPL 25: 773–805. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jigpal/jzx023
• Yoshimi, J., 2007, “Supervenience, determination, and dependence”, Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 88: 114–133. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0114.2007.00283.x
• Zangwill, N., 1998, “Moral supervenience”, Midwest Studies in Philosophy 20: 240–262. (Reprinted as Chapter 20 in [Kim, 2002].) DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4975.1995.tb00315.x
• Zangwill, N., 2008, “Moral dependence”, pages 109–127 in by R. Shafer-Landau (ed.), Oxford Studies in Metaethics, vol. 3, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
• Zimmermann, T.E., 2000, “Free choice disjunction and epistemic possibility”, Natural Language Semantics 8: 259–290. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1011255819284