Next Issue
Volume 4, June
Previous Issue
Volume 3, December
 
 

Logics, Volume 4, Issue 1 (March 2026) – 3 articles

  • Issues are regarded as officially published after their release is announced to the table of contents alert mailing list.
  • You may sign up for e-mail alerts to receive table of contents of newly released issues.
  • PDF is the official format for papers published in both, html and pdf forms. To view the papers in pdf format, click on the "PDF Full-text" link, and use the free Adobe Reader to open them.
Order results
Result details
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:
12 pages, 202 KB  
Article
Two Classes of Intensifiers in Mandarin Chinese: From Subjectivity to Evidentiality
by Jiayi Zhou
Logics 2026, 4(1), 3; https://doi.org/10.3390/logics4010003 - 9 Mar 2026
Viewed by 387
Abstract
This article investigates two distinct classes of intensifiers in Mandarin Chinese, ordinary intensifiers (Class I) and subjective intensifiers (Class II). Intensifiers from Class II, such as zhēn “really”, cannot be used in the following cases: (i) interrogatives, (ii) sentences containing epistemic modals, (iii) [...] Read more.
This article investigates two distinct classes of intensifiers in Mandarin Chinese, ordinary intensifiers (Class I) and subjective intensifiers (Class II). Intensifiers from Class II, such as zhēn “really”, cannot be used in the following cases: (i) interrogatives, (ii) sentences containing epistemic modals, (iii) sentences with negation or as conditional antecedents, (iv) sentences containing attitude predicates, and (v) contexts lacking firsthand experience. This paper argues that evidentiality, as a conceptual framework concerning the source of knowledge, can account for these phenomena related to Class II intensifiers. Specifically, in this study, evidentiality constraints on both the subject and the manner of the information source. The subject must be the speaker, and the information must be acquired as firsthand experience. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Logic, Language, and Information)
11 pages, 271 KB  
Article
Forcing for an Optimal A-Translation
by Rui Li
Logics 2026, 4(1), 2; https://doi.org/10.3390/logics4010002 - 3 Feb 2026
Viewed by 436
Abstract
Kripke semantics for intuitionistic predicate logic IQC is often viewed as a forcing relation between posets and formulas. In this paper, we further introduce Cohen forcing into semantics. In particular, we use generic filters to interpret the double-negation translations from classical first-order logic [...] Read more.
Kripke semantics for intuitionistic predicate logic IQC is often viewed as a forcing relation between posets and formulas. In this paper, we further introduce Cohen forcing into semantics. In particular, we use generic filters to interpret the double-negation translations from classical first-order logic to the intuitionistic version. It explains how our method interprets classical theories into constructive ones. In addition, our approach is generalized to Friedman’s A-translation. Consequently, we propose an optimal A-translation that extends the class of theorems that are conserved from a classical theory to its intuitionistic counterpart. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Logic, Language, and Information)
10 pages, 510 KB  
Article
Formalizing the Interaction Between Evidentiality and Egophoricity: A Multi-Modal Logic for Tibetan Epistemic Systems
by Jiahong Wang
Logics 2026, 4(1), 1; https://doi.org/10.3390/logics4010001 - 16 Jan 2026
Viewed by 465
Abstract
Golog Tibetan grammaticalizes both evidentiality and egophoricity, but the two categories interact in a constrained way: evidential marking neutralizes the binary egophoric versus non-egophoric contrast. This paper develops LEE (Logic of Evidentiality and Egophoricity), a multi-modal logic that formalizes this interaction. LEE employs [...] Read more.
Golog Tibetan grammaticalizes both evidentiality and egophoricity, but the two categories interact in a constrained way: evidential marking neutralizes the binary egophoric versus non-egophoric contrast. This paper develops LEE (Logic of Evidentiality and Egophoricity), a multi-modal logic that formalizes this interaction. LEE employs operators □EGO, □SENS, and □INF for egophoric, sensory-evidential, and inferential-evidential markers, respectively. The blocking effect is captured by axioms □σφ → (□EGOφ ↔ ◇EGOφ) for σ ∈ {SENS, INF}. This paper establishes soundness, completeness, and decidability for LEE. Three empirical puzzles receive unified explanation: (i) blocking of egophoric vs. non-egophoric contrasts under evidential marking, (ii) semantic bleaching of egophoric morphology in evidential contexts, and (iii) the unidirectional nature of the evidential–egophoric interaction. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Logic, Language, and Information)
Previous Issue
Next Issue
Back to TopTop