Logic, Epistemology, and the Unity of Science 39 Monika Gruber Alfred Tarski and the “Concept of Truth in Formalized Languages” A Running Commentary with Consideration of the Polish Original and the German Translation Logic, Epistemology, and the Unity of Science Volume 39 Series editors Shahid Rahman, University of Lille III, France John Symons, University of Texas at El Paso, USA Editorial Board Jean Paul van Bendegem, Free University of Brussels, Belgium Johan van Benthem, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands Jacques Dubucs, CNRS/Paris IV, France Anne Fagot-Largeault, Collège de France, France Göran Sundholm, Universiteit Leiden, The Netherlands Bas van Fraassen, Princeton University, USA Dov Gabbay, King’s College London, UK Jaakko Hintikka, Boston University, USA Karel Lambert, University of California, Irvine, USA Graham Priest, University of Melbourne, Australia Gabriel Sandu, University of Helsinki, Finland Heinrich Wansing, Ruhr-University Bochum, Germany Timothy Williamson, Oxford University, UK Logic, Epistemology, and the Unity of Science aims to reconsider the question oftheunityofscienceinlightofrecentdevelopmentsinlogic.Atpresent,nosingle logical, semantical or methodological framework dominates the philosophy of science. However, the editors of this series believe that formal techniques like, for example, independence friendly logic, dialogical logics, multimodal logics, game theoretic semantics and linear logics, have the potential to cast new light on basic issues in the discussion of the unity of science. Thisseriesprovidesavenuewherephilosophersandlogicianscanapplyspecific technical insights to fundamental philosophical problems. While the series is open toawidevarietyofperspectives,includingthestudyandanalysisofargumentation and the critical discussion of the relationship between logic and the philosophy of science,theaimistoprovideanintegratedpictureofthescientificenterpriseinall its diversity. More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/6936 Monika Gruber Alfred Tarski “ and the Concept of Truth in Formalized ” Languages A Running Commentary with Consideration of the Polish Original and the German Translation 123 Monika Gruber University of Vienna Vienna Austria ISSN 2214-9775 ISSN 2214-9783 (electronic) Logic, Epistemology, andtheUnityof Science ISBN978-3-319-32614-6 ISBN978-3-319-32616-0 (eBook) DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-32616-0 LibraryofCongressControlNumber:2016937945 ©SpringerInternationalPublishingSwitzerland2016 Thisworkissubjecttocopyright.AllrightsarereservedbythePublisher,whetherthewholeorpart of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission orinformationstorageandretrieval,electronicadaptation,computersoftware,orbysimilarordissimilar methodologynowknownorhereafterdeveloped. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publicationdoesnotimply,evenintheabsenceofaspecificstatement,thatsuchnamesareexemptfrom therelevantprotectivelawsandregulationsandthereforefreeforgeneraluse. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authorsortheeditorsgiveawarranty,expressorimplied,withrespecttothematerialcontainedhereinor foranyerrorsoromissionsthatmayhavebeenmade. Printedonacid-freepaper ThisSpringerimprintispublishedbySpringerNature TheregisteredcompanyisSpringerInternationalPublishingAGSwitzerland Preface When today someone speaks of Alfred Tarski’s renowned monograph about the conceptoftruthinformalizedlanguages,shecanmeanoneofthethreedifferenttexts: (1) The English translation published for the first time in 1956, in Tarski’s col- lected works Logic, Semantics, Metamathematics. Papers from 1922 to 1938 whichisusedasthestandardtexttoday.ForthetranslationofhisEnglishtext, J.H. Woodger used the German edition as a basis. (2) The German version published in 1935 under the title “Der Wahrheitsbegriff in den formalisierten Sprachen” in Vol. 1 of Studia Philosophica. Until the publication of the English version (1), the German edition served as the most important basis for the scientific discussion of Tarski’s ideas outside of Poland. Also in the case of the German version, we are dealing with a translation, however here from the Polish original. (3) The Polish original written at the end of the 1920s and the beginning of the 1930s of the twentieth century. On March 21, 1931, it was presented by Jan ŁukasiewicztotheWarsawScientificSociety.In1933,thePolishoriginalwas published under the title “Pojęcie prawdy w językach nauk dedukcyjnych.” Thecomplexityofthis—generallyknown—situationisreflectedinaseriesof problems with which both translations (from Polish into German and from German into English) were confronted: (a) A translation of a scientific text requires, apart from the language profi- ciency,expertiseinthesubject matter. Atthe timewhenTarski’s textwas translated from Polish into German,only a very small group of specialists were familiar with Tarski’s ideas and with the applied methods and tech- niquesofmodernlogic.AnadequatetranslationofTarski’scomplicatedtext turned out to be tremendously challenging for the translator. Hence, it is hardlysurprisingthatthetranslatorhadtodealwithaseriesofobstacles. (b) The translation of the English version, which is used as a standard text sinceitspublication,isnotbasedonthePolishoriginalbutontheGerman translation. v vi Preface Tarski’sarticle isconsidered oneofthemajorcontributions tologic,semantics, and epistemology in the twentieth century. It has, not without good reason, been called “the watershed between early and modern methodology of deductive sci- ences”(Corcoran2006).ItisimportanttorememberthatTarskiwrotethisarticlein Polishandpublisheditin1933.KazimierzTwardowskiapproachedTarskiwiththe suggestionthathisarticlebetranslatedintoaninternationallyknownlanguage.Ina letter written on the November 22, 1933, Tarski expresses his gratitude. Iamverythankfulfortheoffertopublishmypaperontheconceptoftruth,translatedinto German language, in the journal “Studia philosophica”; this proposal agrees completely withmyownwishes..…Iwouldnotundertakethetranslationofmyworkmyselfbecause this task would significantly exceed my knowledge of the German language, and in the currentfinancialsituationIcouldbearneitherthewholenorevenapartofthetranslation cost.[TranslationM.G.]1 It took two years and two translation attempts before it was translated into German in 1935. At first, a young and promising student of Kazimierz Adjukiewicz,ZygmuntSchmiererwastotranslateapartofTarski’sarticle.Having read this sample translation and consulted on it with Adjukiewicz and Ingarden, Kazimierz Twardowski, who acted on behalf of Tarski, decided that Schmierer could not be entrusted with this task. Following this, Twardowski considered another candidate, Leopold Blaustein, who met the high expectations and was entrusted with the German translation, as Twardowski writes to Tarski on the April 16, 1934. The translation has been undertaken by Mr. Dr. Blaustein. I attach a sample of this translation, and ask Dear Mr. Colleague, to send me his possible remarks regarding the termsusedinthetranslation–onthelinguistic–stylisticside,thetranslationiscompletely correct.Italsoisabsolutelyadequate.[TranslationM.G.]2 Tarskireadthetranslation,togetherwithoneofthelogiciansfromVienna,3and wassatisfiedwithBlaustein’ssampleofthetranslationandexpressedhiscontentin a letter written to Twardowski on the April 21, 1934. 1“Zapropozycjewydrukowaniamejpracyopojęciuprawdy,przełożonejnajęzykniemiecki,w czasopiśmie“Studiaphilosophica”jestembardzowdzięczny;propozycjataodpowiadacałkowicie mym własnym życzeniom.…sam nie podjąłbym się przełożyć mej pracy, gdyż zadanie to przekraczałobyznacznie mojąznajomośćjęzyka niemieckiego, awobecnej sytuacji materialnej nie mógłbym ponieść ani w całości ani nawet w części kosztów przekładu”. Letter L. 194/33 archivedinPolskieTowarzystwoFilozoficzne,Poznań. 2“Podjął się mianowicie przekładu Pan Dr. Blaustein. Próbkę tego przekładu załączam, prosząc SzanownegoPanaKolegę,abyzechciałmiprzesłaćSwojeewentualneuwagi,dotycząceużytych w przekładzie terminów – co do strony jezykowostylistycznej bowiem przekład jest zupełnie poprawny. Jest też zupełnie wierny”. Letter L. 98/933 archived in Polskie Towarzystwo Filozoficzne,Poznań. 3InapostcardfromVienna,datedApril6,1935,TarskiwroteTwardowskithat“Korektębędzie przeglądać–obokmnie–jedenztutejszychlogików”–“Nexttome,oneofthelocallogicians will look through the correction”. Letter 109/35 archived in Polskie Towarzystwo Filozoficzne, Poznań. Preface vii I am very happy that mr. dr. Blaustein took up the translation; from the sent sample I concludethattheentiretranslationwillbesatisfactoryineveryrespect.[TranslationM.G.]4 BythetimetheGermantranslationappeared,andduringhisstayinVienna,and laterinParis,TarskihaswrittenPostscriptwhichwasaddedforthefirsttimetothe Germanpublicationofhismanuscript.Atthattime,therewerealreadytwoGerman logicians interested in Tarski’s work and helping him with the corrections of the translationsofthemaintextandofthepostscript.TarskiwrotefromParisaletterto Twardowski on the August 28, 1935, requesting additional copies of the German translation. Ifsending it in three copies meets difficulties, Iwill settle for just one; Ineeded the two additionalcopiesmostlybecauseI’vebeensendingthemtotwoGermanlogicians,whoare veryinterestedinmyworkandforwhommyworkisveryaccurate(I’vedonethesame thingwiththecopyofthefirstcorrection.)[TranslationM.G.]5 The English translation followed in 1956, written by Joseph H. Woodger. Unfortunately, it had to be based on the German version. Moreover, the circum- stances made it impossible for the translator to discuss with Tarski the difficulties encounteredinhiswork.Duetosimilarreasons,Tarskididnotgetachancetoread a greater part of the translation before it was submitted for publication. Therefore, certainmistakeswhichoccurredintheGermanversionhavebeencarriedoverinto the English one. Additionally, new discrepancies came up in the process of translation from the already once translated version. Also, there are some mistakes which appear only in German or English, while others in both translations. Havingsaidthat,Ihopetohaveclarifiedthepictureforthereadersofthepresent work, assuming that most of Tarski readers are already familiar with this complex situation. Now, there are a few words on the present project. This book deals with the translational discrepancies between the most often read and quoted English version, the German translation which served as its basis, and the Polish original whichwasusedfortheGermantranslation.Duetothelegalmatters,specificallyto copyright issues, it was not possible to reprint the English pages and comment directlyonthem,oneafteranother.Instead,thesentencesorsimplephraseswillbe quotedfromthe(Tarski2006)edition.Moreover,inspiteofthecourtesyofHackett Publishing, legally the quotes cannot extend a certain length, and hence, occa- sionally they may be seen a bit taken out of context. Additionally to the transla- tional issues, I will comment on certain, possibly most essential and perhaps most controversial, problems of Tarski’s monograph. My commentary will not be 4“Radteżjestembardzo,żeprzekładupodjąłsięp.dr.Blaustein;znadesłanejpróbkiwnoszę,że całość przekładu wypadnie pod każdym względem zadowalająco”. Letter archived in Polskie TowarzystwoFilozoficzne,Poznań. 5“Jeśliprzesyłaniejejwtrzechegzemplarzachnastręczatrudności,zadowolęsięjednym;dwainne egzemplarze potrzebne mi były z tego glównie względu, że przesyłałem je dwum logikom nie- mieckim,którzybardzosięmąpracąinteresująidlaktórychpracamojajestb.aktualna(tosamo czyniłem z jednym egzemplarzem pierwszej korekty).” Letter L. 224/35 archived in Polskie TowarzystwoFilozoficzne,Poznań. viii Preface exhaustive,acommentaryrarelyis.Tarski’swritings,especiallyhismonographon truth, have been read, reread, and commented on multiple times. The scholars dealingwithTarski’sworkhavemuchmoreexperienceandexpertiseinthesubject matterthanIdo,andIshallnotpretendotherwisejustbecausePolishismynative language; instead, I will suggest further literature to the reader. This monograph is meant to be read parallel to the English edition of Tarski’s “Concept of Truth in Formalized Languages,” as a kind of manual or a guide for better apprehension of the text. It is thought as auxiliary means for all scholars having the expertise in the subject but lacking the knowledge of Polish. It should also be helpful to philosophy students, of all levels, making the understanding of this very complex and groundbreaking text somewhat more reachable. The com- prehension itself is left to the reader. The last chapter consists of a rare and most valuable collection of the letters concerningthetranslationofTarski’smanuscript.Mostofthepresentedletterswere exchanged between Alfred Tarski and Kazimierz Twardowski, but there are also lettersfromKarlPopper.Additionally,thereareafewlettersnotdirectlyregarding the translation of Tarski’s article, but interesting, nevertheless. The collection has neverbeenpublishedbefore,whichmakesitevenmoreprecioustoincludeitinthis publication. Reference Tarski, A. (2006). The concept of truth in formalized languages. In J. Corcoran (Ed.), Logic, semantics, metamathematics (pp. 152–278). Papers from 1923 to 1938 by Alfred Tarski. HackettPublishingCompany. Acknowledgments There are several people to whom I am deeply thankful for their ongoing support and help. Without them, this project would not have been possible. This publication is based upon my dissertation written at the University of Salzburg under the supervision of Egdar Morscher and Alexander Hieke. I’m thankfulfortheirsupport,especiallytoProf.EdgarMorscher,whoapproachedme with the idea of writing this dissertation and devoted a lot of time helping me, re-reading the final version and suggesting corrections and improvements. Certain partsofmydissertation,however,havebeendeleted,rewritten,orextendedforthe presentpublication.Thesoleresponsibilityforthispublicationlieswiththeauthor. My thanks go also to Arianna Betti and Iris Loeb, who took an interest in my dissertationbeforeitwasevenfinishedandusedthedraftsofitintheseminarthey held, later sharing their useful comments. Following, they invited me to the workshoptheyorganizedandaskedmetopresentsomeofmyresults.Thisgaveme a rare opportunity to discuss some of the crucial issues with the specialists in this field, among them Steven Givant, Peter Simons, and Göran Sundholm to whom I am thankful for their inspiring comments and suggestions. To Göran Sundholm, I’m especially thankful for taking interest in my dissertation and for pointing me towardthisseriesbySpringer.IwouldalsoliketothankHartryField,whobrought to my attention the philosophical discussion regarding Tarski’s Postscript and for the following discussions. To Jan Woleński, I am grateful for his invaluable comments and suggestions, and also for sending me the copies of the correspon- dence between Twardowski and Tarski, twice. Furthermore, I’m very indebted to Krzysztof Brzechczyn for copying and sending me the entire archived collection of the Polish Philosophical Society in Poznań, and for agreeing to quoting and reprinting some of the letters in this publication. I special thanks go to Alexander Jones for proofreading of my manuscript and for making multiple corrections contributing greatly to my publication. I’m very thankful to Christi Jongepier-Lue and Shaly Fermine from Springer Verlag and to the whole Springer team for their continuous assistance with the publication, and ix