The model-theoretic analysis of the concept of logical consequence has come under heavy criticism in the last couple of decades. The present work looks at an alternative approach to logical consequence where the notion of inference takes center stage. Formally, the model-theoretic framework is exchanged for a proof-theoretic framework. It is argued that contrary to the traditional view, proof-theoretic semantics is not revisionary, and should rather be seen as a formal semantics that can supplement model-theory. Specifically, there are formal resources to provide a proof-theoretic semantics for both intuitionistic and classical logic. We develop a new perspective on proof-theoretic harmony for logical constants which incorporates elements from the substructural era of proof-theory. We show that there is a semantic lacuna in the traditional accounts of harmony. A new theory of how inference rules determine the semantic content of logical constants is developed. The theory weds proof-theoretic and model-theoretic semantics by showing how proof-theoretic rules can induce truth-conditional clauses in Boolean and many-valued settings. It is argued that such a new approach to how rules determine meaning will ultimately assist our understanding of the apriori nature of logic.

This thesis examines two approaches to Galois correspondences in formal logic. A standard result of classical first-order model theory is the observation that models of L-theories with a weak form of elimination of imaginaries hold a correspondence between their substructures and automorphism groups defined on them. This work applies the resultant framework to explore the practical consequences of a model-theoretic Galois theory with respect to certain first-order L-theories. The framework is also used to motivate an examination of its underlying model-theoretic foundations. The model-theoretic Galois theory of pure fields and valued fields is compared to the algebraic Galois theory of pure and valued fields to point out differences that may hold between them. The framework of this logical Galois correspondence is also applied to the theory of pseudoexponentiation to obtain a sketch of the Galois theory of exponential fields, where the fixed substructure of the complex pseudoexponential field B is an exponential field with the field Qrab as its algebraic subfield. This work obtains a partial exponential analogue to the Kronecker-Weber theorem by describing the pure field-theoretic abelian extensions of Qrab, expanding upon work in the twelfth of Hilbert’s problems. This result is then used to determine some of the model-theoretic abelian extensions of the fixed substructure of B. This work also incorporates the principles required of this model-theoretic framework in order to develop a model theory over substructural logics which is capable of expressing this Galois correspondence. A formal semantics is developed for quantified predicate substructural logics based on algebraic models for their propositional or nonquantified fragments. This semantics is then used to develop substructural forms of standard results in classical first-order model theory. This work then uses this substructural model theory to demonstrate the Galois correspondence that substructural first-order theories can carry in certain situations.

Partant des travaux séminaux de Boole, Frege et Russell, le mémoire cherche à clarifier l‟enjeu du pluralisme logique à l‟ère de la prolifération des logiques non-classiques et des développements en informatique théorique et en théorie des preuves. Deux chapitres plus « historiques » sont à l‟ordre du jour : (1) le premier chapitre articule l‟absolutisme de Frege et Russell en prenant soin de montrer comment il exclut la possibilité d‟envisager des structures et des logiques alternatives; (2) le quatrième chapitre expose le chemin qui mena Carnap à l‟adoption de la méthode syntaxique et du principe de tolérance, pour ensuite dégager l‟instrumentalisme carnapien en philosophie de la Logique et des mathématiques. Passant par l‟analyse d‟une interprétation intuitive de la logique linéaire, le deuxième chapitre se tourne ensuite vers l‟établissement d‟une forme logico-mathématique de pluralisme logique à l‟aide de la théorie des relations d‟ordre et la théorie des catégories. Le troisième chapitre délimite le terrain de jeu des positions entourant le débat entre monisme et pluralisme puis offre un argument contre la thèse qui veut que le conflit entre logiques rivales soit apparent, le tout grâce à l‟utilisation du point de vue des logiques sous-structurelles. Enfin, le cinquième chapitre démontre que chacune des trois grandes approches au concept de conséquence logique (modèle-théorétique, preuve-théorétique et dialogique) forme un cadre suffisamment général pour établir un pluralisme. Bref, le mémoire est une défense du pluralisme logique. / Starting from the seminal work of Boole, Frege and Russell, the dissertation seeks to clarify the issue of logical pluralism in the era of the proliferation of non-classical logics and the developments in theoretical computer science and proof theory. Two “historical” chapters are scheduled: the first chapter articulate the absolutism of Frege and Russell, taking care to show how it condemns the possibility to consider alternative structures and logics; the fourth chapter describes the path that led Carnap from the adoption of the syntactic method to the formulation of the principle of tolerance, then goes on to display Carnap‟s instrumentalism in philosophy of Logic and mathematics. Opening with the analysis of an intuitive interpretation of linear logic, the second chapter then turns to the establishment of a form of logico-mathematical pluralism with the help of order theory and category theory. The third chapter delineates the playground of revisionism (philosophical positions surrounding the debate between monism and pluralism) and then provides an argument against the thesis that denies the reality of the conflict between rival logics, all this being done by adopting the substructural logic point of view. The fifth chapter shows that each of the three main approaches to the concept of logical consequence (model-theoretic, proof-theoretic and dialogical) supplies a framework sufficiently general to establish pluralism. In short, the dissertation is a defence of logical pluralism.

Partant des travaux séminaux de Boole, Frege et Russell, le mémoire cherche à clarifier l‟enjeu du pluralisme logique à l‟ère de la prolifération des logiques non-classiques et des développements en informatique théorique et en théorie des preuves. Deux chapitres plus « historiques » sont à l‟ordre du jour : (1) le premier chapitre articule l‟absolutisme de Frege et Russell en prenant soin de montrer comment il exclut la possibilité d‟envisager des structures et des logiques alternatives; (2) le quatrième chapitre expose le chemin qui mena Carnap à l‟adoption de la méthode syntaxique et du principe de tolérance, pour ensuite dégager l‟instrumentalisme carnapien en philosophie de la Logique et des mathématiques. Passant par l‟analyse d‟une interprétation intuitive de la logique linéaire, le deuxième chapitre se tourne ensuite vers l‟établissement d‟une forme logico-mathématique de pluralisme logique à l‟aide de la théorie des relations d‟ordre et la théorie des catégories. Le troisième chapitre délimite le terrain de jeu des positions entourant le débat entre monisme et pluralisme puis offre un argument contre la thèse qui veut que le conflit entre logiques rivales soit apparent, le tout grâce à l‟utilisation du point de vue des logiques sous-structurelles. Enfin, le cinquième chapitre démontre que chacune des trois grandes approches au concept de conséquence logique (modèle-théorétique, preuve-théorétique et dialogique) forme un cadre suffisamment général pour établir un pluralisme. Bref, le mémoire est une défense du pluralisme logique. / Starting from the seminal work of Boole, Frege and Russell, the dissertation seeks to clarify the issue of logical pluralism in the era of the proliferation of non-classical logics and the developments in theoretical computer science and proof theory. Two “historical” chapters are scheduled: the first chapter articulate the absolutism of Frege and Russell, taking care to show how it condemns the possibility to consider alternative structures and logics; the fourth chapter describes the path that led Carnap from the adoption of the syntactic method to the formulation of the principle of tolerance, then goes on to display Carnap‟s instrumentalism in philosophy of Logic and mathematics. Opening with the analysis of an intuitive interpretation of linear logic, the second chapter then turns to the establishment of a form of logico-mathematical pluralism with the help of order theory and category theory. The third chapter delineates the playground of revisionism (philosophical positions surrounding the debate between monism and pluralism) and then provides an argument against the thesis that denies the reality of the conflict between rival logics, all this being done by adopting the substructural logic point of view. The fifth chapter shows that each of the three main approaches to the concept of logical consequence (model-theoretic, proof-theoretic and dialogical) supplies a framework sufficiently general to establish pluralism. In short, the dissertation is a defence of logical pluralism.