SEMANTICS - NOTATION FOR SIMPLE PROPOSITION

NOTATION FOR SIMPLE PROPOSITION

Arranged to Fulfill One of The Assignments of

SEMANTICS Lecture Handled by

                                                        Drs.Ec. Aris Munandar, M.Pd

By:

MERY ARIANSYAH

English Department / Semester 4

1235511179

INSTITUTE OF TEACHER TRAINING AND EDUCATION

SUMENEP ASSOCIATION OF INDONESIAN TEACHERS

TRUNOJOYO STREET, GEDUNGAN - SUMENEP

 APRIL, 2014

TABLE OF CONTENT

Preface------------------------------------------------------------------------ ii

A.   Introduction-------------------------------------------------------------- 1

B.   Discussion

        Logic provides----------------------------------------------------------- 2

C.   Conclusion--------------------------------------------------------------- 7

References-------------------------------------------------------------------- 8

i

P R E F A C E

The following pages are based on a report of a book Semantics a course book by James R. Hurford, Brendan Heasley, and Michael B. Smith. Moreover, it also based on another references that the writer have browsed in internet before.

This paper “ Notation For Simple Proposition” is written in order to to Fulfill One of The Assignments of  SEMANTICS Lecture which is handled by  Drs.Ec. Aris Munandar, M.Pd.. In the long run, the students themselves can understand easier the matter that is explained in this paper.

The writer is fully aware that this paper is so far from being perfect, that is why any constructive criticism is welcome to improve the quality if this paper.

Sumenep, March 28, 2014

The Writer,

        Mery Ariansyah

                                    ii

A.    INTRODUCTION

Before we learn what a notation for simple proposition is, it would be better if we know what a proposition is first. A proposition is that part of the meaning of the utterance of a declarative sentence which describes some state of affairs. The state of affairs typically  involves persons or things referred to by expressions in the sentence and the situation or action are involved. True proposition correspond to facts, in the ordinary sense of the word fact. False proposition do not correspond to facts.

Proposition explicitly mentioned declarative sentences, but proposition are clearly involved the meanings of other types of sentences, such as interrogatives, which are used to ask question, and imperatives, which are used to convey orders.

In saying, “Mery can do this job” a speaker asserts the proposition that Mery can do this job. In saying “can Mery do this job?”, he mention the same proposition but merely question its truth. We say that corresponding declaratives and interrogatives (and imperatives) have the same propositional content.

A proposition is an abstraction grasped by the mind of an individual person. In this sense, a proposition is an object of thought. Do not equate proposition with thoughts, because thoughts are usually held to be private, personal, mental processes, whereas propositions are public in the sense that the same proposition is accesible to different person: different individuals can grasp the same proposition. Furthermore, a proposition is not a process, whereas a thought can be seen as a process going on in an individual’s mind.

B.     DISCUSSION

Logic provides a notation for unambiguously representing the essentials of proposition. Logic has in fact been extremely selective in the parts of language it has dealt with; but the parts it has dealt with it has treated in great depth.

The notation which is adopted here is closer to English, and therefore easier for beginners to handle, than the rather more technical notations found in some logic books and generally in the advanced literature of logic. It is assumed that simple proposition, like simple sentences, have just one predicator, which is written in capital letters. While the arguments of the predicator are represented by single lower-case letters, putting one of these letters  before the predicator (like the subject of an English sentence) and the others (if there are others) after  the predicator, usually in the preffered English word order. Anything that is not a predicator or a referring expression is simply omitted from logical notation.

Example

1.      Mery wrote would be represented by the formula m WROTE

2.      Buggi is a cat by b CAT

3.      Indina introduced Ayu to Faizal by i INTRODUCE a f

These formula are very bare, stripped down to nothing but names and predicators. The reasons for eliminating elements such as forms of the verb be, articles (a, the), tense markers (past, present), and certain preposition (e.g. Indina introduced Ayu to Faizal) are partly a matter of serious principle and partly a matter of convenience. The most serious principle involved is the traditional concentration of logic on truth.

Articles, a and the, do not affect the truth of the propositions expressed by simple sentences. Accordingly, they are simply omitted from the relatively basic logical formulae we are dealing with here. Some preposition, e.g. at, in, on, under, are also omitted.

Looak at these examples below

Mery is looking for Anton

Mery is looking at Anton                                                                                           

We treat expressions like look for, look at, look after as single predicates when they contain prepositions that contribute in an important way to the sense of the sentence. This natural, as many such expression are indeed synonymous with single word predicates, e.g. seek, regard, supervise.

Tense (e.g. past, present) is not represented in our logical formulae, and neither is any form of the verb be. The word than is also ommited in comparative sentences like in Mery is longer than Ayu (m LONGER a). The omission of tense is actually not justifiable on the grounds that tense does not contribute to the sense of a sentence.

In our logical formulae, we will represent the identity predicate with an “equals” sign =, and we will simply omit anything corresponding to any other use of the verb be.

Look at these example below;

Mery Ariansyah is Wondergirl                        ma = w

Mery Ariansyah is a teacher                            ma TEACHER

Mr Joy was a singer                                        mj SINGER

Mr Gee was a driver                                       mg DRIVER

Mr Joy was Mr Gee                                        mj = mg

We have been using lower case letters (or sequences of letters), such as w and ma, as names in logical formulae. Logical formulae for simple proposition are very simple in structure. It is important to adhere ti this simple structure, as it embodies a strict definition of the structure of simple proposition.

Every simple proposition is representable by a single PREDICATOR, drawn from the predicates in the language, and a number of ARGUMENTS, drawn from the names in the language. This implies, among other things, that no formula for a simple proposition can have two (or more) predicators, and it cannot have anything which is neither a predicate nor a name.

Look at these example below;

r love j is a well formed formula for a simple proposition

r j is not a well formed formula, because it contains no predicator

r IDOLIZE ADORE r is not a well formed formula for a simple proposition, because it contains two predicators

r and k LOVE j is not a well formed formula for a simple proposition, because it contains something (and) which is neither a predicator nor a name.

In order to make you know more about this matter, you can try this activity with using the rule that is stated below.

Rule : A simple formula consisting of a name and a one place predicate is true of a situation in which the referent of the name is member of the extension of the predicate.

Below is a picture of a tiny fragment of a universe of discourse (a situation). In the picture we have labelled individuals with their names (Al, Ed, and Mo).

The formula ed STAND is true of this situation (corresponding to the sentences Ed is standing)

The formula mo CAT is false of this situation.

So, it is time for you to practice. In relation to the situation depicted above, are the following formula true (T) or false (F)?

1.      al MAN                                               T / F

2.      al WOMAN                                        T / F

3.      mo SIT                                                T / F

4.      ed STAND                                          T / F

5.      ed EAT                                               T / F

A system of logic must have its own “semantics”, a set of principles relating its formulae to the situations they describe. The rule given above for simple formulae consisting of a name and a one place predicate is part of such a set of principles, a “semantics for logic”. Logicians use the term “semantics” in a much narrower way; for logicians, the semantics of logic consists only in relating (parts of) formulae to entities outside the notational system, e.g. to referents and extensions.

It is very important to have this extensional component in logical system, as it provides a constant reminder that logical formulae can only be fully understood to the extent that they are systematically related to some world (universe of discourse) external to the national itself.

C.    CONCLUSION

We have presented a logical notation for simple propositions. A well formed formula for a simple proposition contains a single PREDICATOR, drawn from the predicates in the language, and a number of ARGUMENTS, drawn from the names in the language. The notation we have given contains no elements corresponding to articles such as a an the, certain preposition, and certain instances of the verb be, as these make no contribution to the truth conditions of the sentences containing them. We have also, for convenience only, omitted any representation of tense in our logical formulae.

REFERENCES

Hurford, James R., and Brendan Heasley.1984. Semantics: a course book.        Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

http://eweb.furman.edu/~wrogers/simpleproposition/phcons.htm

http://www.usingenglish.com/articles/semantics-comprehension.html