Chapter 1

A Formal Language for Formal

Logic
Logic is the study of argument. But particular arguments in a naturallanguage such as English are only
really of interest to the formallogician as instances of logical forms of argument. Formal logic is the
study of argument-forms; hence, formal logic. Classical formal logic constitutes one ambitious attempt
to capture every logical form of argument in a single language. But that language is not English. It
is not any natural language. Rather, it is a formal language, i.e. a symbolism or notation in which
we can express arguments so that their forms show up clearly. As we shall see, we can go on to add
certain rules to that formal language so that we can demonstrate when one sentence in the language
follows logically from other sentences. Unlike English, the simplest sentences in the vocabulary of the
formal language are not actual sentences but symbols which abbreviate particular sentences and stand
in their place. These new symbols which stand for specific sentences are just letters of the alphabet
and so they are often called sentence-letters. In the last chapter we saw that we could use sentential
variables such as p, q, r etc. to mark a gap or place in an argument-frame which might be filled by
any sentence whatsoever. In contrast, sentenceletters stand in place of specific sentences. In more
formal terms, sentenceletters are not sentential variables but sentential constants. This distinction is
an important one. Variables are not the same thing as constants. Each does a distinct job for the
formal logician and different symbols are used to mark that distinction. So, while sentential variables
are represented by lowercase letters, p, q, r, etc., sentential constants will be represented by uppercase
capital letters, P, Q, R and so on.
Before we go any further, it is instructive to make an important point about the notation we will
use in this and subsequent chapters. Note carefully that when we mention rather than actually use a
sentential variable or a sentential constant in an English sentence as we did at the end of the previous
paragraph, for example, the symbol is placed in quotation marks. In effect, quotation marks are used
to form an English name for each symbol, i.e. an expression which refers to the symbol itself, not to
the referent of that symbol. In practice, though this is perfectly correct, it can also become perfectly
tedious for both the reader and, indeed, the writer. Hence, from now on we will use these symbols
in English language contexts as names of themselves or, as logicians say, we will use these symbols
autonymously. More generally, we can now understand any sentence of the formal language as a name
of itself, i.e. as an autonym. This subtle point will be clarified as we go. For now, it is enough to see
that it allows us to reduce the use of quotation marks vastly and thus, hopefully, affords us a greater
clarity of expression. With that point in mind, consider a simple example. Suppose that we wanted to
represent the Blind Lemon Jefferson argument in our formal language using sentence-letters, i.e. the
argument that:
1. If its a Blind Lemon Jefferson album then its a blues album.
2. Its a Blind Lemon Jefferson album.
1

CHAPTER 1. A FORMAL LANGUAGE FOR FORMAL LOGIC

Therefore,
3. Its a Blues album.
First, we must study the argument closely so as to identify clearly the sentences which compose it.
In the first instance, what we are looking for here are not complex sentences such as Premise 1 but
rather the most simple or basic sentences such as Premise 2 and the conclusion, i.e. we are looking
for the shortest possible well-formed sentences involved. Given our stock of sentence-letters we can
easily represent any such sentence formally. Hence, we simply let the first sentence-letter P stand for
the first such basic sentence involved, i.e. Its a Blind Lemon Jefferson album, and then let the second
sentence-letter Q stand for the second basic sentence involved, i.e. Its a blues album. Having done so,
we can abbreviate the first premise to:
1. If P then Q
Now, the second premise is exactly the same sentence that we used P to stand for. So, we may
rewrite Premise 2 as:
2. P
Finally, the conclusion is exactly the sentence that we used Q to stand for. So, we complete the
formalisation by rewriting 3 as:
3. Q Obviously, sentence-letters are just as easy to use as sentential variables. But do remember
that sentence-letters stand for particular sentences. As such, they are constants and not variables. We
could simply continue to use the more formal term sentential constant, but sentence-letter is much more
user-friendly and using that term may also serve to remind us that it is always particular sentences
which are involved in this type of formalisation. So, I will stick to sentence-letter in what follows.