Exhibiting interpretational and representational validity

• Published in: Synthese (Dordrecht) Vol. 191; no. 7; pp. 1349 - 1373
• Main Author: Baumgartner, Michael
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Dordrecht Springer 01.05.2014; Springer Netherlands; Springer Nature B.V
• Subjects: Cognition & reasoning; Education; Epistemology; Formalization; Language translation; Logic; Logic of Language; Mathematical validity; Metaphysics; Modal realism; Model theory; Natural Language; Philosophy; Philosophy of Language; Philosophy of Science; Predicates; Sublanguages; Truth condition; Verbalization; Pittsburgh Pennsylvania; Interpretational validity; Logical validity; Representational validity; Logical formalization; Etchemendy; Argument reconstruction
• ISSN: 0039-7857; 1573-0964
• DOI: 10.1007/s11229-013-0331-z

A natural language argument may be valid in at least two nonequivalent senses: it may be interpretationally or representationally valid (Etchemendy in The concept of logical consequence. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1990). Interpretational and representational validity can both be formally exhibited by classical first-order logic. However, as these two notions of informal validity differ extensionally and first-order logic fixes one determinate extension for the notion of formal validity (or consequence), some arguments must be formalized by unrelated nonequivalent formalizations in order to formally account for their interpretational or representational validity, respectively. As a consequence, arguments must be formalized subject to different criteria of adequate formalization depending on which variant of informal validity is to be revealed. This paper develops different criteria that formalizations of an argument have to satisfy in order to exhibit the latter's interpretational or representational validity.