Is ‘No’ a Force-Indicator? Yes, Sooner or Later!

Abstract

This paper discusses the philosophical and logical motivations for rejectivism, primarily by considering a dialogical approach to logic, which is formalized in a Question-Answer Semantics (QAS). We develop a generalised account of rejectivism through close consideration of Mark Textor's arguments against rejectivism that the negative expression 'no'is never used as an act of rejection and is equivalent with a negative sentence. In doing so, we also shed light upon well-known issues regarding the supposed non-embeddability and non-iterability of force indicators. We finish by highlighting the benefits of our approach with regard to the categoricity of logics, and also a conditional that intends to solve the Frege-Geach Problem.

The Football of Logic

“…By doing so, this logical system endorses rejectivism -the linguistic or logical theory according to which negation is primarily a speech-act to be explained in terms of denial. By explaining the background of rejectivism and depicting the no-answer as a force indicator that plays the role of denial [12], it results in another view of negation as an opposite of affirmation. Thus, the two polar answers "yes" and "no" are the basic units of meaning conveyed by affording some information with a sentential content.…”