Abou T u h and Possible Wo lds:
Pa el Tichý and His Logical
and Philosophical Resea ch*
Anna Ma ia Pe issu i
Uni e si y o Udine
[email p o ec ed]
SYNOPSIS
This pape is de o ed o he b illian Czech logician and philosophe o language Pa el Tichý
(1936–1994) who, a e emig a ing o New Zealand in 1970 and spending hal his li e he e as apo-
li ical e ugee, commi ed suicide sho ly be o e e u ning o his alma ma e , Cha les Uni e si y
in P ague, as Chai o he Depa men o Logic in he Facul y o A s. A e acing abiog aphical
p o ile o he Czech logician, he pape explains some o he cen al ideas o Tichý’s highly o iginal
heo y, called T anspa en In ensional Logic, while loca ing i in he wide con ex o he analy ic
philosophy o language. The pape concludes by highligh ing he ole played by Tichý’s in ensional
heo y in ad ancing a ious disciplines, including a i icial in elligence, wi h he aim o shedding
ligh on he signi ican con ibu ions o he Czech logician, who has ye o gain due ecogni ion.
KEYWORDS
Pa el Tichý; philosophy o language; seman ics; in ensional logic; in ension; ex ension; possible
wo lds; u h alues; cons uc ions; exile; Communis egime.
DOI
h ps://doi.o g/10.14712/23366680.2021.3.7
This pape aims o shed ligh on he pe sonali y and scien i ic wo k o Pa el Tichý,
agi ed and o iginal Czech logician and philosophe o language, who gained wo ld-
wide ame in he ield o philosophical logic.
His pe sonal and p o essional biog aphy can be ead as an example o he p essu e
and di icul condi ions ha in ellec uals coming om Cen al and Eas e n Eu ope
we e exposed o in he 20 h cen u y unde he communis egime. A e emig a ing
wi h his amily om Czechoslo akia o Exe e , England in 1968, and o New Zealand
in 1970, Pa el Tichý became P o esso o Logic a he Uni e si y o O ago in Dunedin,
* Due o es ic ions imposed o p e en he sp ead o he co ona i us, Icould no a el o
O ago, New Zealand, o conduc esea ch in he Uni e si y a chi e, no mee wi h Pa -
el Tichý’s wi e, he w i e Jind a Tichá. This pape is based on he a ailable li e a u e and
ape sonal in e iew in P ague wi h P o . Pa el Ma e na, Tichý’s li elong iend, colleague
and passiona e suppo e , in Decembe 2019.
OPEN
ACCESS
112 SLOVO A SMYSL 38
whe e he spen oughly wen y- i e yea s wo king in he ield o in ensional logic.
A he end o he communis e a, he was in i ed o e u n o his alma ma e , Cha les
Uni e si y in P ague, as Chai o he Depa men o Logic in he Facul y o A s. He
was conside ed in he selec ion p ocess and ul ima ely o e ed he posi ion, bu be-
o e mo ing o P ague he commi ed suicide in Dunedin, on 26Oc obe 1994.
The i s aim o his pape is o ace abiog aphical p o ile o he Czech logician;
he second is o explain some o he cen al ideas o Tichý’s b ainchild, a heo y called
T anspa en In ensional Logic (o en sho ened o TIL), while loca ing i in he wide
con ex o he analy ic philosophy o language. I is o ganised in ou pa s: 1) abio-
g aphical p o ile o he Czech logician; 2) an anecdo e om 1972 ha helps o e-
cons uc he o en no ed polemical ea u e o Tichý’s wo k; 3) an ou line o Tichý’s
logical app oach o meaning; 4) conclusions.
1. PAVEL TICHÝ’S BIBLIOGRAPHY
Pa el Tichý was bo n on 18Feb ua y 1936 in B no.1 He spen his ea ly yea s in he
Mo a ian ci ies o Zlín and Vse ín. A e inishing seconda y school in Vse ín in 1954,
he began his s udies a Cha les Uni e si y in P ague, whe e he s udied philosophy
and ma hema ics. Du ing his s udies, he became mo e and mo e in e es ed in logic,
a ield which lacked asigni ican adi ion in Czech academic ci cles.2
In 1961, a e comple ing his compulso y mili a y se ice, Tichý e u ned o he
Cha les Uni e si y Facul y o A s o wo k as alec u e in he Depa men o Logic,
whe e P o esso O aka Zich had o med ag oup o young logicians, including Ka el
Be ka, Mi osla Jau is, Pa el Ma e na, Mi osla Mlezi a, and O a Weinbe ge . Al-
hough he philosophy scene o ha pe iod in Czechoslo akia was s ic ly domi-
na ed by Ma xis ideology (whose p inciples Tichý, as as uden and young schola ,
accep ed), he poli ical a mosphe e o he 1960s and libe alisa ion ga e oom o ela-
i ely ee scien i ic wo k in he ield o logic. Tichý g adua ed in 1959, wi h amas e
hesis w i en in Ge man and de o ed o he logician Ku Gödel: Eine Exposi ion des
Gödelischen Un olls ändigkei sbeweises in de ein achen Typen heo ie (‘An exposi ion o
Gödel’s incomple eness heo em in he simple heo y o ypes’), published in Ac a
Uni e si a is Ca olinae, Philosophica e His o ica in 1962.
Du ing 1961–1964, Tichý wo ked on his doc o al hesis Vyčísli elnos e z ahu k eo-
iím (‘Compu abili y and i s ela ionship o heo ies’), which he success ully de ended
in 1964, and was awa ded he i le o CSc. (candida us scien ia um, o ‘candida e o
sciences’) he equi alen o aPh.D. In he 1960s, he augh se e al cou ses on logic a
1 As Cheyne— Jespe sen— S oboda (2004, p.25) poin ou , he amous Aus ian logician
and ma hema ician Ku Gödel was bo n in he own o B no oo. Unlike Gödel, who came
om aGe man speaking communi y, Tichý’s mo he ongue was Czech, as was he cul u -
al milieu whe e he spen he i s hal o his li e.
2 The lack o aCzech adi ion in he a ea o logic in he 1960s may seem su p ising, gi en
ha he amous Bohemian logician, philosophe , ma hema ician, and heologian Bolzano
spen his en i e li e in P ague. In ac Bolzano did no ha e any impo an ollowe s among
Czech schola s.
OPEN
ACCESS
ANNA MARiA PERiSSUTTi 113
Cha les Uni e si y and w o e wo ex books: Logika p o s udující na pedagogických in-
s i u ech (‘Logic o s uden s in pedagogical ins i u es’), an elemen a y ex book, and
Logická s a ba ědeckého jazyka (‘The logical s uc u e o scien i ic language’), con-
aining an o iginal p esen a ion o he syn ax and seman ics o he simple heo y o
ypes.
The ee poli ical a mosphe e o ‘P ague Sp ing’ in he ea ly 1960s allowed
Tichý o es ablish many con ac s wi h Wes e n colleagues. As a esul , he was in-
i ed by Geo ey Keene o he Uni e si y o Exe e in England. A ew weeks be o e
his depa u e, in Augus 1968, Wa saw Pac o ces in aded Czechoslo akia, ending
P ague Sp ing and beginning he So ie occupa ion. The Depa men o Philosophy
a Cha les Uni e si y was closed. Tichý’s eac ion o his e en was adical. He im-
media ely le he Communis Pa y, which he had joined when he was eigh een, and
became acommi ed an i-communis .
Ne e heless, he was allowed o lea e o Exe e , and in 1969 he e en ecei ed he
i le o assis an p o esso a Cha les Uni e si y, wi h he wo k In ension in Te ms o
Tu ing Machines and On he Vicious Ci cle in De ini ions: Two S udies in Logical Seman ics.
Once in Exe e , he ealised i would be impossible o him o pu sue an academic
ca ee in he ‘no malised’ Czechoslo akia, and he decided no o e u n. Fo una ely,
his wi e Jind a and young son Pe we e allowed o join him in Exe e .
In 1970 Tichý was o e ed aposi ion as asenio lec u e a he Uni e si y o O ago
in Dunedin, New Zealand, by P o . Alan Musg a e, who had jus been appoin ed p o-
esso o philosophy a ha uni e si y. Tichý accep ed he in i a ion and emig a ed
wi h his amily by ship o New Zealand, whe e he became P o esso o Philosophy
and Logic a he Uni e si y o O ago in Dunedin in 1981.
Thus began he mos ui ul pe iod o his p o essional li e. His pape s on logic
s a ed o be published in leading jou nals on logic and logical philosophy.3
In 1974–1976, he wo ked ou asys em o a empo al in ensional logic based on he
simple heo y o ypes. This book, en i led In oduc ion o In ensional Logic, emained
unpublished.4
In 1976 and in 1984, he isi ed he Uni e si y o Pi sbu gh and Uni e si y o A -
izona in Tucson (Uni ed S a es), ha ing been awa ded wo long e m ellowships.
Du ing hese isi s, he had he oppo uni y o mee wi h leading philosophe s and
logicians, while p esen ing and de ending his own wo k.
3 His publica ions in his pe iod include Wha Do We Talk Abou ? (1975), Ve isimili ude Rede-
ined (1976), ANew Theo y o Subjunc i e Condi ionals (1978), The T ansiency o T u h (1980),
and Cons uc ions (1986). As Ja osla Pe eg in poin s ou (1996, p.9), his success ge ing
jou nals o publish his wo k was ce ainly made mo e di icul by he ac ha he o en en-
gaged in sha p c i icism o gene ally espec ed iews in his a icles.
4 One o he main easons was ha , while publishing he book in he la e 1970s, Tichý came
o he conclusion ha asys em o in ensional logic canno enable asa is ac o y analysis
o na u al language i i s appa a us is no adequa ely equipped o cap u e i s empo al di-
mension. In he ollowing yea s he de eloped anew e sion o his sys em— which Ideal
wi h la e in his pape — in which a iables o empo al momen s ( ep esen ed by eal
numbe s) we e in oduced and in which possible wo ld his o ies (ins ead o imeless pos-
sible wo lds) play ac ucial ole in he seman ic amewo k.
OPEN
ACCESS
114 SLOVO A SMYSL 38
In he yea s ha ollowed he published ase ies o impo an a icles, culmina ing
in his 1988 mas e piece The Founda ions o F ege’s Logic, in which he explains he p in-
ciple o T anspa en In ensional Logic, his mos impo an and las ing con ibu ion
o philosophy.
Un o una ely, he book was no as well ecei ed as Tichý had hoped, and did no
ea n him he epu a ion he undoub edly dese ed.5 Ne e heless, he Czech logician
con inued his wo k, con inuing o de elop his sys em, and in he 1990s he launched
he p ojec o a‘Meaning D i en G amma ’ (MDG), whose goal was o p o ide a heo-
e ical basis o compu e -based machine ansla ion o English sen ences in o a o -
mal language, based on TIL p inciples.
A e he all o he communis egime in Czechoslo akia, Tichý was inally able
o e u n o his homeland a e mo e han wen y yea s, and euni e wi h his old
iends and colleagues. In 1992 he spen six mon hs in Czechoslo akia. He was happy
o see ha T anspa en In ensional Logic was known and app ecia ed (especially
hanks o his old iends and dis an collabo a o s Pa el Cmo ej and Pa el Ma e na),
no only among young logicians bu also o mal linguis s and compu e scien is s.
His p esence ga e anew impe us o TIL s udies. In ea ly 1993 he was in i ed o apply
o he Chai o he Depa men o Logic in he Facul y o A s a Cha les Uni e si y.
He hoped his close collabo a ion wi h his Czech and Slo ak colleagues and his pe -
sonal in luence on Czech s uden s would ans o m P ague in o an in e na ionally
ecognised cen e o logic, om which o dissemina e he logical-philosophical ideas
o which he had de o ed his li e wo ldwide. He was o e ed he posi ion and began
planning his mo e o P ague in ea ly 1995. Bu he e we e se e al se backs ela ed o
he mo e ha deeply upse him, and an un o una e coincidence o e en s led o his
unexpec ed and agic dea h in abush ese e nea his home in Dunedin, on 26Oc o-
be 1994. The cause o dea h was d owning, bu he medical examine was unable o
de e mine he p ecise ci cums ances.6
2. PAVEL TICHÝ: AFEROCIOUS DEBATER
As p o esso Pa el Ma e na ecalls, Pa el Tichý imp essed him om he e y begin-
ning, when he was s ill ayoung s uden o logic a Cha les Uni e si y in he 1960s.
Acco ding o Ma e na, Tichý was ex emely cle e , accu a e, and p ecise, and ape -
ec ionis in e e y hing he did, whe he he was lea ning a o eign language o mak-
ing a able, deba ing on aphilosophical ma e , o w i ing apape on he logical s uc-
u e o sen ences.
His ex ao dina y sha pness as ac i ic o philosophy can be illus a ed wi h an
anecdo e old on he webpage o he Depa men o Philosophy a O ago Uni e si y:
5 As Hols e (2003) explains, he lack o app ecia ion and he weak c i ical eac ion o his
book can be explained by aking in o accoun he unusual complexi y o he o mal appa-
a us he used and he ac ha his ideas we e oo adical o be ully unde s ood by main-
s eam logicians and philosophe s.
6 The ci cums ances o Tichý’s suicide, as well as many de ails o his li e in New Zealand,
a e depic ed by his wi e Jind a Tichá in he no el Dea h and Fo gi eness (2015).
OPEN
ACCESS
ANNA MARiA PERiSSUTTi 115
He was a ough, e en a e ocious, deba e and since he was also sup emely cle e , i
was e y di icul o ge him o back down abou any hing. Bu he sligh es sugges-
ion ha some iew o his migh lend some suppo o pa aconsis en logic would
cause him o ecoil like a ampi e h ea ened wi h ac uci ix. Ahigh poin o his
ca ee was in 1972 when Si Ka l Poppe isi ed he Depa men as aWilliam E ans
Fellow. Poppe had ecen ly p oposed ade ini ion o closeness o u h, which was in-
ended o explica e he in ui i e idea ha one alse heo y can be close o he u h
han ano he . Tichy demolished his de ini ion wi h ap oo ha on Poppe ’s ac-
coun all alse heo ies a e equally a om he u h, inishing in a ypically down-
igh manne : ‘Iconclude ha Poppe ’s de ini ion is wo hless’. The e was apause
as e e yone awai ed he esponse o he no o iously empe amen al Poppe . When i
came i was ema kably g acious: ‘Idisag ee wi h only one wo d o his pape ’— i s
las wo d. ‘No de ini ion can be wo hless, when i p o okes such ade as a ing c i i-
cism. Ihope ha D Tichy will join me in his p ojec , and p oduce abe e de ini ion
han mine.’7
In his case Tichý, who was allegedly ne e sa is ied wi h gi ing pu ely nega i e c i i-
cism, wen on o de elop a heo y o ‘ e isimili ude’ wi h his s uden and collabo a o
G aham Oddie. The heo y, which aims a sol ing he p oblem o how he e aci y o
scien i ic heo ies can be judged, is p esen ed by Oddie (1986) wi h clea and simple
explana ions o he concep o he ‘logical space’ employed by Tichý.
In he ollowing sec ion, Iwill ou line he gene al logical app oach wi h he aim
o be e unde s anding he ex ao dina y Czech logician.
3. THE FOUNDATION OF TICHÝ’S THEORY
Th ougou all his p o essional li e, Tichý deal cons an ly wi h wo cen al opics: his
heo y o T anspa en In ensional Logic and his concep ion o cons uc ions. He de-
eloped he i s o hese opics as ea ly as he 1970s; he began o deal wi h he sec-
ond in he 1980s. Bo h cons i u e o iginal con ibu ions, and a e conside ed ahead o
hei ime.
Le us i s ake ab ie look a he i s o hese, T anspa en In ensional Logic,
which is o en sho ened as TIL.
3.1. FREgE’S LEgACY
As Jespe sen a gues, he cen al ques ion ha TIL aims o answe can be cha ac e -
ised as ollows: ‘wha i is ha we know, lea n, communica e, unde s and, and a e
o he wise in ellec ually ela ed o when we know e c. alinguis ic sense’ (2004, p. 9).
F om he poin o iew o he his o y o philosophy, TIL can be aced back o
he adi ion o ‘objec ual seman ics’, gene ally ega ded as o igina ing wi h Go lob
F ege, he Ge man logician, ma hema ician and philosophe who played ac ucial ole
in he eme gence o mode n logic and analy ic philosophy. The idea o objec ual se-
7 h ps://www.o ago.ac.nz/philosophy/dep /his o y.h ml.
OPEN
ACCESS

116 SLOVO A SMYSL 38
man ics is o de ine wha wo ds mean, i.e. o speci y he di ec connec ions be ween
he exp essions and he hings, o ‘objec s o e e ence’, a e m which is aken b oadly
o include ‘abs ac objec s’ such as concep s.8
While con en ional accoun s o meaning conside ed exp essions o ha e jus one
ea u e ( e e ence, i.e. ex ension), F ege in oduced he iew in his amous essay Übe
Sinn und Bedeu ung (‘On sense and e e ence’), published in 1982, ha he e a e wo
le els o ‘meaning’: exp essions in alanguage, which p ima ily deno e wha we migh
in ui i ely call ‘concep s’; and speci ic ac ual hings, o ac ual alues ( he e e ence),
which hese ‘concep s’ may o may no e e o. This in ui ion was o pa amoun im-
po ance o he philosophy o language and led ul ima ely o he de elopmen o
in ensional logics in he 20 h cen u y.9
Le ’s conside he ollowing example, p esen ed in Ja osla Pe eg in (1996,
pp.17–18). Acco ding o F ege, he exp essions ‘ he i s p esiden o he Czech Re-
public’ and ‘ he au ho o The Ga den Pa y’ ha e he same e e ence (o ex ension),
i.e. Václa Ha el, bu di e in hei sense (o in ension), because he i s exp ession
p esen s Ha el as he i s p esiden o he Czech Republic and he second as he au-
ho o he play The Ga den Pa y.
Acco ding o F ege, as a as sen ences a e conce ned, hey e e o a u h alue,
i.e. hei ex ension co esponds o a u h alue, while hei in ension is a hough . I
we ake he sen ence ‘Václa Ha el is he au ho o The Ga den Pa y’ and we analyse
i wi h he help o F ege’s p edica e logic, we ge he ollowing analysis: he name
‘Václa Ha el’ e e s o an indi idual; he p edica e ‘is he au ho o The Ga den Pa y’
indica es a unc ion ha assigns o e e y indi idual who is he au ho o ‘The Ga den
Pa y’ aTRUE u h alue, and o e e y indi idual who is no he au ho o The Ga -
den Pa y aFALSE u h alue; he sen ence ‘Václa Ha el is he au ho o The Ga den
Pa y’ hus indica es he u h alue ha his unc ion assigns o he indi idual
named ‘Václa Ha el’.
While being undamen ally in luenced by F ege, Tichý conside ed his wo-le el
heo y o be oo simple o ep esen he mechanism o meaning c ea ion in na u al
o a i icial languages.
8 This app oach is o be con as ed wi h non-objec ual heo ies o meaning, which ypically
appeal o he implici causal p ocesses unde lying language use. As is well known, some
philosophe s in e p e he meanings o exp essions as men al s a es ( o example Hume),
o as beha io al sys ems o ules o he use o exp essions ( o example la e Wi gen-
s ein), e en i he exp essions do no explici ly e e o ei he such men al s a es o ules
o linguis ic beha io . On he con a y, objec ual seman ics ocuses on he li e al mean-
ing o linguis ic exp essions; i is he e o e as udy o he logic o meaning, a he han an
an h opological o psychological s udy. Ques ions o how we lea n, use o pe cei e mean-
ings a e no wi hin i s scope.
9 As a as in ensional logic (also called in ensional seman ics) is conce ned, he i s wo ks
we e published in he i s pa o he 20 h cen u y by Russell, Chu ch, Gödel, Ca nap,
Ta ski; la e , om 1950 o 1970, ag owing body o esea ches in his ield eme ged. The
second pa o he 20 h cen u y is adi ionally domina ed by he wo k o Richa d Mon-
ague, who published in 1970 he i s o mal sys ems o wha is now called ‘Mon ague’s
G amma ’.
OPEN
ACCESS
ANNA MARiA PERiSSUTTi 117
In gene al e ms, Tichý in oduced anew le el, which he called ‘cons uc ions’,
ha aims a ep esen ing he meaning o complex exp essions. Acco ding o Tichý,
complex exp essions (whe he hey a e ma hema ical ope a ions such as ‘1 + 3 = 4’,
o na u al language exp essions such as ‘ he ed ca pe ’) do no di ec ly ‘pick up’ in-
en ions, bu ep esen ways o cons uc ing o gene a ing in ensions om simple
cons uc ions and in ensions. S a ing in he 1980s, Tichý s a ed o ocus on his
cons uc i e dimension o meaning, which was absen in F ege’s logic and o he in-
ensional sys ems.
While Tichý’s heo y is hus an ‘objec ual’ one, inse ed in o F ege’s adi ion, his
de ini ion and o malisia ion o in ensionali y a e deeply inno a i e.
Be o e we de ine ‘cons uc ions’ (3.5.), he mos ele an o Tichý’s in en ion, we
will ou line he essen ial concep s o TIL, i.e. in ensions and possible wo lds (3.2.),
Tichý’s de ini ion o logic (3.3.), and he sense o he e m ‘ anspa en ’ in TIL (3.4.).
3.2. iNTENSiONS, TiME, AND POSSibLE WORLDS
We ha e seen ha , acco ding o F ege, he meaning o ap oposi ion is a u h alue.
In Tichý’s o mula ion o in ensional heo y, unlike ha o F ege, i is conside ed ha
he u h alues o ypical p oposi ions can change o e ime, and a e gene ally only
con ingen : in o he wo ds, hey a e only he alues ha p oposi ions ake a ce ain
imes, and in ce ain s a es o a ai s. I he wo ld we e di e en , some p oposi ions
would ha e di e en alues o hose hey ac ually ha e. Thus, Tichý’s o malisa ion
o he concep o in ension is based on he idea o ‘possible wo lds’, aconcep which
can be aced back o he Ge man philosophe and ma hema ician Leibniz (1646–1717)
and which was in ensi ely deba ed in he 1960s, in he con ex o mode n modal logic
(K ipke 1963).10 Wo lds a e concei ed in his heo y as maximal classes o ac s, includ-
ing all his o ical ac s pas , p esen , and u u e, abou e e y hing ha e e happens.
Tichý’s g ea me i has been o o malise he no ion o in ensionali y, p oposing
asys em wi h asmall numbe o explici ca ego ies (objec s): possible wo lds, imes,
indi iduals, and u h alues, en iched wi h a‘lambda abs ac ion appa a us’.11 Mo e-
o e , he in oduced explici quan i ica ion o e wo lds.
Acco ding o Tichý, o ind he alue o ap oposi ion, we ha e o apply i i s
o awo ld, and hen o a ime in he wo ld. Fo example, i we le P be ap oposi-
ion, ω he class o possible wo lds, τ he class o imes, ο he class o u h alues—
10 I is no able ha Tichý disco e ed in ensional logic independen ly o Mon ague, and pub-
lished his i s sys em (in English) almos simul aneously. Those who know Tichý’s wo k
o en ega d his sys em as mo e elegan , simple and anspa en om a o mal poin o
iew han Mon ague’s, al hough he essen ial idea is he same. Bu un o una ely o Tichý,
his heo y was i s published in 1971, sho ly a e Mon ague’s pape s o 1970, and he has
ecei ed li le c edi o his o iginali y (c . Pe eg in 1996, p.16).
11 Lambda calculus (also w i en as λ-calculus) is a o mal sys em in ma hema ical logic
o exp essing compu a ion based on unc ion abs ac ion and applica ion using a iable
binding and subs i u ion. I is auni e sal model o compu a ion, in oduced by he ma he-
ma ician Alonzo Chu ch in he 1930s as pa o his esea ch in o he ounda ions o ma h-
ema ics.
OPEN
ACCESS
118 SLOVO A SMYSL 38
i.e.{T ue, False}—, hen we can iden i y he p oposi ion as aspeci ic mapping, om
wo lds and imes o u h alues. Tichý sepa a ed his mapping in o wo s eps:
P: ω → (τ → ο)
He s a ed ha he ac ual u h- alue o ap oposi ion P a he p esen ime is he ex-
ension o P, while P i sel is i s in ension (i.e. he gene al mapping). So, he in ension
o aname is a unc ion ha assigns an objec o each possible wo ld.
In sho , o cons uc in ensions, Tichý in oduces ap ecise on ology o in en-
sional en i ies, which include possible wo lds, imes, indi iduals, and u h alues,
en iched wi h alambda abs ac ion appa a us. As Jespe sen (2004, p.10) s a es: ‘in
Tichý’s sense o in ensionali y, […] he logic in ques ion comes wi h an on ology o
in ensional en i ies and he means o logically ea hese en i ies’.
Ha ing explained TIL’s in ensionali y, we can p oceed o ou line Tichý’s concep
o logic.
3.3. ON TiCHÝ’S ‘LOgiC’
Based on Pe eg in’s explana ion (1996, p.17), he e we e wo dominan concep ions
o ‘logic’ du ing he pe iod in which Tichý was wo king. The i s ook ‘logic’ o be
alanguage whose exp essions ha e a ix and s able meaning and can be used by he
esea che as a amewo k o heo e isa ion. This is F ege’s and Russell’s concep ion
o logic, o which Tichý adhe es.
The second app oach, which became e y popula in he second hal o he 20 h
cen u y o he s udy o pu ely symbolic sys ems, o ‘g amma s’, s a ed om he
ma hema ician Hilbe and ook ‘logic’ o be a o mal sys em which can be modi ied
by he esea che , in o de o ep esen in o ma ion. This second in e p e a ion e-
mains common in many mode n seman ic heo ies.
Tichý was opposed o his second ‘ o malis ’ in e p e ion o logic.12 While he in-
oduced anumbe o o mal sys ems o help pe o m logical analysis, he was no
in e es ed in he s udy o o malism o i s own sake. Fo mal sys ems we e only p o-
posed o help wi h he analysis o meaning.13
TIL’s ‘logic’ is hus a amewo k ha allows he esea che o make an accu a e
analysis, o compu e in o ma ion, o cap u e he ‘mechanics’ o meaning.
In he nex sec ion, we will y o de ine he adjec i e ‘ anspa en ’.14 In which
sense is TIL anspa en ?
12 He was especially opposed o ace ain dominan line o de elopmen in mid- o-la e 20 h
cen u y logic and seman ics, which he calls he ‘linguis ic’ adi ion, exampli ied by such
‘au ho i ies’ as Quine, Mon ague, K ipke, Hin ikka, Dumme , Kleene, Pu nam, Dow y,
Pa ee and many o he s.
13 I is su icien o ake in o accoun he ambi ious p ojec he de eloped in he 90s, Meaning
D i en G amma , which was based on he hypo hesis ha o m and meaning a e insepa a-
ble and ha an adequa e g amma mus gene a e no only well- o med sen ences bu also
sen ence-meaning pai s in which meanings a e iden i ied wi h logical cons uc ions o TIL.
14 The name TIL is in ended as an allusion o Richa d Mon ague’s ‘in ensional logic’ (IL).
OPEN
ACCESS
ANNA MARiA PERiSSUTTi 119
3.4. ON TiL’S TRANSPARENCY
The i s in e p e a ion o ‘ anspa en ’ in TIL e lec s he use o asymbolic sys em
ha shows explici ly he logical s uc u e o linguis ic exp essions.15
Con a y o Richa d Mon ague’s seman ics, Tichý seeks o explain he logical o m
o sen ences wi h explici e e ence o wo ld- ime dependencies, using abs ac ions
on wo ld- ime indices.
Asecond, impo an de ini ion o TIL’s ‘ anspa ency’ has o do wi h he ole o
con ex . Tichý a gues ha seman ic p ope ies a e con ex ually in a ian , de ia ing
om F ege and oday’s o mal seman ics.16 In his sense, TIL is anspa en because i
denies ha con ex (p agma ic o logical) in which an exp ession occu s con ibu es
o i s seman ic p ope ies. ‘T anspa ency’ is hus con as ed wi h con ex ualism.
This leads us o ano he e y impo an concep in Tichý’s heo y: he p inciple o
composi ionali y, which s a es ha : The meaning o acomplex exp ession is a unc ion o
he meanings o i s pa s, and he way hey a e combined.17
Tichý d aws a en ion o he ac ha simple e ms a e combined wi h each o he
o o m complex e ms, like in he p oposi ion ‘ he ed ca pe ’ o in he ma hema ical
ope a ion ‘1 + 2 = 3’. In an objec ual heo y, such as Tichý’s, his means ha objec s ha
p o ide he meaning o simple e ms can be combined wi h each o he o gene a e
o he objec s, which p o ide he meaning o acomplex exp ession.
15 In TIL’s symbolic sys em he e a e wo main ea u es: asys em o logical ypes and wo ld-
ime indices (Tichý 1988, p.202).
16 As Jespe sen poin s ou ‘ o ag ea e ex en han does Mon ague’s, Tichý’s heo y belongs o
wha Da id Kaplan once called he “Golden Age o Pu e Seman ics”, cha ac e ised by such lo-
gicians and philosophe s as Rudol Ca nap and Alonzo Chu ch. P agma ic and o he con ex-
ual ea u es o language a e igno ed. The ocus is ins ead on all and only hose ap io i ea u es
o language ha can be desc ibed in apu ely logical manne . Issues like language acquisi-
ion, unde s anding, and communica ion o m no pa o he s o y’ (Jespe sen 2004, p.9).
17 This p inciple, o iginally ad anced by F ege, had p o en inadequa e o explaining he
con ex s in which na u al language exp essions a e ambiguous, and subsequen ly aban-
doned by many philosophe s o language (see Ca nap 1957). Acco ding o Tichý, na u al
language ambigui ies we e no a eason o abandon he p inciple o composi ionali y: he
s a ed ha apiece o na u al language has o be in e p e ed and disambigua ed. TIL’s ide-
alised language se es his ask p ecisely.
He discussed in pa icula wo con ex s o ambigui y: s a emen s abou p oposi ional be-
lie s, and ‘de dic o and de e supposi ions’. Le ’s b ie ly commen on he ambigui y showed
by he ollowing wo sen ences, each one con ainig ade dic o o de e supposi ion.
A. ‘John me apoe ’.
B. ‘John is looking o apoe ’.
In case A he exp ession ‘apoe ’ is used wi h ade e supposi ion (i e e s o an indi idual),
while in B i is ambiguous whe he i ea u es ade e supposi ion (whe e ‘apoe ’ e e s o
an indi idual), o ade dic o supposi ion (whe e i e e s o aso called ‘o ice’). This ambigu-
i y seems o con adic he p inciple o composi ionali y, because he e m ‘poe ’ seems o
ake on an al e na i e ype o meaning in each o hese con ex s. Bu , wi h he use o TIL’s
explici symbolic sys em, Tichý is able o disambigua e his con ex and o main ain he
p inciple o composi ionali y.
OPEN
ACCESS