But symbols can denote not only logical variables, but also logical constants.

e.), which have a personal meaning and substantive significance. All legal terms in terms of semiotics are signs, linguistic expressions that denote a particular legal object.

Reference of legal terms, ie the ratio of the term to the object is related to:

a) with the definition of their personal meaning; https://123helpme.me/buy-compare-and-contrast-essay/ b) with an exact indication of the subject (denotation), which is denoted by this term.

The denotation for legal terms will be:

a) subjects of law, holders of legal properties (individuals, social groups of people, governmental and non-governmental organizations); b) legal relationship; c) lawful or unlawful behavior of people; d) the level of legal awareness, which includes legal ideology and legal psychology; e) legal (legal) science, which summarizes the state and legal phenomena; g) objective positive law, ie a system of legal norms established by the state.

The situation of the ratio of legal terms (language signs) and denotation (object denoted by this term) is called a sign situation. For example, the legal term “criminal” (or common and specific name) refers to a person (person “x”) who has a personal name (surname, first name, patronymic) and who has committed a certain act, say, theft of individual property from a citizen “y”.

The pragmatic aspect of this symbolic situation means the use of the language of law (a semantic system built on the rules of syntax) as a means of adequate and accurate indication of the denotation in specific conditions.

Logical analysis of the language of law involves determining:

a) structural levels of language; b) its specifics as a means of expression of opinion and a means of transmitting information; c) its ability to create certain symbolic models in various areas of law.

The language of law or legal language in terms of logic differs in the following characteristics:

theoretical language (language of legal theories, language of legal laws); empirical language (applied language), ie, the language of legal analysis, law enforcement, the language of interpretation, etc.; object level of legal language or object language is a system of signs and symbols of natural and artificial (formalized) language, which represent and reflect real objects (objects, phenomena, processes), which are studied (known) by lawyers in the process of legal activities. metalevel (metalanguage), ie a system of symbols and signs used to analyze the language itself, including the object language.

For example, such legal terms as “law”, “legal relationship”, “law and order”, “law”, “legality”, etc. refer to the object level of the language of law, and the statement: “The word” law “consists of five letters” – to the metalevel.

Natural language, which is a means of thinking and cognition for people, often performs the function of “metalanguage” in relation to formalized language.

Accordingly, the special language of law, which refers to natural language, can be used as a metalanguage in relation to the formalized language of law (when using the language of codes, traffic signs, programming language), the language of logic and mathematics in legal activities, when the language of law is taken as sign-symbolic means of indicating and analyzing the use of formalized language in legal cognition.

10/24/2011

General characteristics of judgments: terms, variables, propositional function. Abstract

Distribution of terms in judgments. Logical variables and logical constants. Judgment and propositional function

Distribution of terms in judgments

As noted earlier, the subject and predicate of a judgment are called terms. Each term in the judgment is distributed or not distributed.

Knowledge of the rules of distribution of terms in judgments is necessary in the analysis of inferences:

– If the term of judgment is fully included in the scope of another term or completely excluded from it, it is distributed.

– If the term of judgment is partially included in the scope of another term or partially excluded from it, it is distributed.

At distribution of the term in judgment it is spoken about all subjects, about all class. If the term in the judgment is not distributed, it means that the judgment is not about all, but only about some objects of the class, expressed by this term, about some part of this class.

There are such rules of distribution of terms in judgments.

1.a) In general judgments, in which the volume of the term S is fully included in the volume of P, S – distributed, and P – not distributed.

Consider this rule in the following example: “All metals are conductors of electricity” (“All S is P”). Since the volume of the subject of this judgment (the concept of “metal”) is fully included in the volume of the predicate (the concept of “conductor of electricity”), then S is distributed here, and P is not distributed. This judgment refers to all metals, but not to all conductors of electricity. The volume of the predicate (P) in such judgments is not limited to the volume of the subject (S).

b) In the same general judgments, in which the volume of the subject is the same, distributed not only the subject (S), but also the predicate (P). General affirmative judgments, in which S and P are distributed, include judgments-definitions and judgments with the distinguishing subject.

2. In generally negative judgments, the subject and the predicate are divided. For example, in the sentence “None of the evidence should be taken for granted” (“None of S is P”), the volume of the subject (the concept of “proof”) is completely excluded from the scope of the predicate ( “take for granted”), so both terms S and P) are distributed here.

3. In partial affirmative judgments we have two cases.

a) In partial affirmative judgments, in which the volume of the subject is partially included in the volume of the predicate, S and P are not distributed. For example: “Some students are excellent” (“Some S is P”). In this judgment, both the subject (the concept of “students”) and the predicate (the concept of “excellent”) are not distributed, because the scope of one term is only partially included in the scope of the second.

b) In a partial affirmative judgment, in which the volume of the predicate is fully included in the volume of the subject, S is distributed and P is not distributed. For example, in the proposition “Some crimes are official” (“Some S is P”) the volume of the predicate (“official crimes”) is fully included in the volume of the subject (“crimes”), so P is distributed here, and S is not distributed.

4. In partially contradictory judgments the subject is not distributed, the predicate is distributed, or in these judgments the volume S is partially excluded from the volume R. For example, in the judgment “Some students are not excellent” (“Some S are not P “) the subject ((” students “) is not distributed, because its volume is partially excluded from the volume of the predicate (” excellent “), and the predicate is distributed.

Logical variables and logical constants

In the formulas used to express the structure of judgments, some signs are constant and others are variable. To find out what they are, consider a number of examples.

Take the following three judgments:

Some students are excellent. Some writers are winners. Some agreements are unilateral.

If we express the structure of each of these judgments in the form of a formula, it will be the same for them: “Some S is P”. The signs S and P in this formula are variable, they replace words that express a variety of specific meanings of the concept. In the first sentence S is the concept of “student” in the second – “writer” in the third – “agreement”. The sign P replaces in the first judgment the concept of “excellent” in the second “winner” in the third – “unilateral”. The words “some” and “are” in these judgments, expressing the same logical connections are constant.

Signs in the formulas of judgments, which are replaced by specific concepts, are called logical variables. And words or symbols in formulas, available in all content-specific judgments that have this structure, are called logical constants.

We denoted logical variables by signs (symbols) S and P, and logical constants – “all” “some” “are” and so on. But symbols can denote not only logical variables, but also logical constants. The use of symbols makes it possible not only to write down the structure of judgments (and other forms of thought), but also to eliminate the ambiguity of words with which logical constants are expressed.

Thus, the word “is” by which the connection between S and P is expressed in judgments that have the structure “S is P” is ambiguous, it has a different logical meaning. For example, in the judgment “A contract is an agreement” the word “is” expresses the ratio of the inclusion of S in P (inclusion of a class of contracts to a class of agreements). In the judgment “Ivanov found guilty” it expresses the relation of an element of a class to all classes.

To eliminate this ambiguity of the word “is” use signs (symbols). The relationship of equivalence between S and P is denoted by the sign “=” or “≈” and the ratio of a class element to classes is a sign.

The symbols used to denote the logical constants of other types of judgments will be considered when describing these judgments.

Judgment and propositional function

From the judgment should be distinguished linguistic expression, called “propositional function or function of expression.”

A proportional function is a grammatical expression that has the form of an affirmative judgment, in which only what is stated about the object of thought is known, the object of thought itself remains unknown (indefinite).

Let’s explain with examples. Take the following judgments:

The judge is a lawyer. The investigator is a lawyer. A lawyer is a lawyer.

The predicate in these judgments is the same – “lawyer” and the subject – different: “judge” “investigator” “lawyer”. If we replace the subject of these judgments with the sign x, we get the expression: x – a lawyer.

Such a linguistic utterance is called a positional function, or utterance function. Examples are: “x – man” “x – rule of law” “x> y” and so on.

The propositional function is not a judgment, it is neither true nor false, it can neither be refuted nor proved. The function of expression becomes a judgment only when the place of an unknown object (variable x) is replaced by a specific object. For example, if we take the function of the statement “x – the rule of law” and substitute under x something specific, definite, we will have a judgment that will be either true or false: “Article 144 of the Criminal Code – the rule of law “- a judgment, moreover true, and” The verdict of the people’s court in Petrenko’s case is a rule of law “is a judgment, but incorrect.

In the proportional function distinguish between argument and predicate. In the function of the expression “x – lawyer” the sign x is an argument, and the concept of “lawyer” is a predicate. In the function of the expression “x is less than y” one predicate – the concept of “less” and two arguments – x and y; in the propositional function “x is between y and z” one predicate – the concept of “be” and three arguments – x, y and z.