1

RevistaPatagnicadeFilosofa,2,2,2000,7992
ThemysteryofFrege's"Bedeutung"

IgnacioAngelelli
UniversityofTexasatAustin

1.Introduction
TheGermanword'Bedeutung'hastwomeaningsontheonehandwemaysay,for
example,thattheBedeutungofthesingularterm'Bariloche'isthistown;ontheother
handwemaysaythattheBedeutungofBariloche,thetownBariloche,isgreatforthe
Argentiniantouristicdevelopment.Briefly,wemayspeakofthesemanticmeaningand
theimportancemeaningoftheword'Bedeutung'.
StandardEnglishtranslationssuchas'reference','denotation',conveyonlythesemantic
side,andhideentirelytheimportanceaspect.Theword'meaning'mightdobetter,but
thenthetranslatorshouldexplicitlyremindthereaderthatboththesemanticandthe
importancesensearetobeconsidered;'significance'expressesverywelltheimportance
sense,butmayfailtohighlightthesemanticaspect,unlessthereaderis,again,explicitly
advised.InSpanish'significado'isindeedthetranslationtoberecommended,sinceit
expresseswithequalforcebothaspects.
Istheambiguityof'Bedeutung'relevantatallfortheunderstandingofFrege'snotion?
ThisisthequestionIwanttoraiseinthispaper.Myanswerisaffirmative,butnotbased
onanyFregeantextitisaninterpretation.
Theconvenienceofreading'Bedeutung'asimportanceratherthansemanticallywasfirst
proposedin(Angelelli,1967),whereIinsistedontheambiguityoftheGermanwordas
akeyfortheunderstandingofFrege'sdoctrine,especiallywithregardtosentences1.This
issuewasalsoraised,lateron,byTugendhat.2
1ThispointwasalreadyemphasizedinmyFribourgdissertation,submittedin1965.
2IhavesomecommentsonTugendhat'sapproachin(Angelelli,1982).

Frege'sthreeprincipalcategoriesofexpressionsaresingularterms,sentences,and
predicates(Iuseaterminologydifferentfromhis).IneachoftheseexpressionsFrege
distinguishesSinnandBedeutung.Thecaseofsingulartermsisdeceivinglysimple.For
thecaseofpredicatestherearenottoomanyexplanations.Theinterestingcaseisthatof
sentences.Infact,studentsofFregeshouldgodirectlytosentences,andforgetaboutthe
MorningStarandtheEveningStar.
2.ThecomplexobscurityoftheFregeanpresentationofthe"Bedeutung"ofsentences
ThediscussioninthispaperwillbereferredtotheportionofFrege'sessayberSinn
undBedeutung(Frege,1892)thatbegins(onp.32oftheoriginalpagination)withthe
remarkthat"SofarwehaveconsideredthesenseandBedeutungonlyofsuch
expressions...aswehavecalledpropernames.Wenowinquireconcerningthesenseand
Bedeutungofanentireassertoricsentence"3,andends(onp.36oftheoriginal
pagination)withthefollowingstatement:"Nowifourviewiscorrect,thetruthvalueof
asentencecontaininganotheraspartmustremainunchangedwhenthepartisreplaced
byanothersentencehavingthesametruthvalue"4.
Thistext,approximatelytwoorthreepageslong,isdevotedtoageneralconsiderationof
whatistheBedeutungofsentences,andhasfourparts.First,Fregerulesoutthe
"thought"(Gedanke,proposition)asacandidateforplayingtheroleofBedeutungof
sentences.Thesecond,centralpartincludesanargumentwhoseconclusionplaysthe
role,forFrege,ofbeingagoodreasontoproposeacertainconjectureconcerningthe
natureoftheBedeutungofsentences.Thethirdpartdescribes,andsuccessfullyperforms
(Fregebelieves),atestoftheconjecture.Thefourthpartdescribes,withoutperforming,
asecondtestoftheconjecture(theactualcarryingoutofthissecondtestfillsthe
remainingtwelveorsopagesofthepaper)5.

3BishersindSinnundBedeutungnurvonsolchenAusdrcken...betrachtetworden,
welchewirEigennamengenannthaben.WirfragennunnachSinnundBedeutungeines
ganzenBehauptungssatzes.
4WennnununsereAnsichtrichtigist,somussderWahrheitswerteinesSatzes,dereinen
andernalsTeilenthlt,unverndertbleiben,wennwirfrdenTeilsatzeinenandern
einsetzen,dessenWahrheitswertderselbeist.
5In(Angelelli,1982)Ihaveanalyzedeachofthesefourpartsintomanyshorter
fragments.

AnyreaderofFregeshouldbeshockedbytheobscurityofFrege'spresentationofthe
notionofBedeutungofsentences.Theobscurityismultiple:Icountthreemainobstacles
orproblems,andasweshallsee,oneofthesethreedifficultiesisitselfabundleofat
leasttwosubproblems.
First,thereisageneralthesisonBedeutungrevealedbythefollowingstatement:Ifwe
nowreplaceonewordofthesentencebyanotherhavingthesameBedeutung,buta
differentsense,thiscanhavenoeffectupontheBedeutungofthesentence.Ingeneral
formulation:ifBed(E)=Bed(E'),thensubstitutingEbyE'doesnotchangethe
BedeutungofanycompoundexpressionA(E)inwhichEoccurs.Irefertothisas"the
firstprincipleofBedeutung",brieflyBP1.Thisprincipleisnotanyversionofthefamiliar
Leibniz'slaw;thelatterclaimsthatthesubstitutionissalvaveritate,Frege'sprinciplethat
itis,sotospeak,salvaBedeutung.ThereareseveraloccurrencesofBP1inFrege's
writings(Angelelli,1982).
FregestateshisprincipleBP1inanexceedinglycasualway,asifthereadershould
alreadybeverywellacquaintedwithit.Butthisisnotatallthecase.Onthecontrary,
evenifthereaderisagoodFregescholar,heorshewillwonder:Whatisthesecret
notionofBedeutungthatFregehashereinmind,andwhichallowshimtoassertBP1as
anobviousmatter?NosuchnotionisexplainedbyFregeinanyofhiswritings.
ThesecondsurpriseisanothergeneralthesisonBedeutungthatemergesfromthe
followingpassage:ThefactthatweconcernourselvesatallabouttheBedeutungofa
partofthesentenceindicatesthatwegenerallyrecognizeandexpectaBedeutungforthe
sentenceitself.Also:WehaveseenthattheBedeutungofasentencemayalwaysbe
sought,whenevertheBedeutungofitscomponentsisinvolved.Otheroccurrencesofthe
principle,brieflyBP2,thatseemstobepresupposedhere,allowustotakeitasa
biconditional(Angelelli,1982,footnote6):acompoundexpressionhasBedeutungiffits
componentshaveBedeutung.Thismaybecalledtheprincipleof"existence"of
Bedeutung.
AsinthecaseofBP1,onecannothelpwonderingwhatisthemysteriousnotionof
BedeutungthatFregetakesforgrantedinordertoassert,soconfidently,BP2asamatter
ofcourse.Again,suchanotionisneverexplainedbyFregeinanyofhiswritings.

ThethirdobstacleencounteredbyareaderofFrege'sfamouspaperistheconjecture
(German:Vermutung),thatFregeadvancesasananswertothequestionofwhatisthe
Bedeutungofsentences.ThisconjecturebrieflyVsaysthattheBedeutungofa
sentenceisidenticaltothetruthvalueofthesentence.
TheconjectureVispresentedbyFregeasstronglysuggestedbytheconclusionofa
certainargument.Thisargumentstartswiththequestion:"Whatisthesituationnow
withregardtotheBedeutung?Havewearighteventoinquireaboutit?"6andendswith
thestatement:"WehaveseenthattheBedeutungofasentencemayalwaysbesought,
whenevertheBedeutungofitscomponentsisinvolved;andthatthisisthecasewhenand
onlywhenweareinquiringafterthetruthvalue."7
Theargumentisconvenientlyreadasinvolvingastoryaboutthreecharacters,allof
themassociatedwithanarbitrarysentences:1)theBedeutungofpartsofs(mainly
understoodasofsingulartermsins),2)theBedeutungofs,3)thetruthvalueofs.The
firstandthethirdcharactersareknown,thesecondistheonethathastobediscovered.
Therearethreebasicstatements:p)allthesingulartermsinshaveBedeutung,q)shasa
truthvalue,andr)shasaBedeutung.WiththesestatementsFregebuildsthree
biconditionals:pr,pq,andrq.Thebiconditionalprisbackedup,or
expressesBP2.ItseemsthatFrege'splanistoregardbothbiconditionalsaspremisses
leadingtotheconclusionrq:asentencehasBedeutungiffithasatruthvalue.
OnthebasisofthatconclusionFregefeelsjustifiedtosubmithisconjecture:"Weare
thereforedrivenintoacceptingthetruthvalueofasentenceasconstitutingits
Bedeutung"8.(Theword"conjecture","Vermutung",doesnotoccurherebutshortly
afterwards.)
TheobscuritysurroundingVistwofold9:bothitscontentisveryawkward(foranyone
whotakesBedeutunginthesemanticsenseitishardtoacceptthattheBedeutungofa
sentenceismerelyitstruthvalue)andthejustification,givenbyFrege,oftheplausibility
6WieistesnunabermitderBedeutung?Drfenwirberhauptdanachfragen?
7Wirhabengesehen,dasszueinemSatzeimmerdanneineBedeutungzusuchenist,
wennesaufdieBedeutungderBestandteileankommt;unddasistimmerdannundnur
dannderfall,wennwirnachdemWahrheitswertefragen.
8Sowerdenwirdahingedrngt,denWahrheitswerteinesSatzesalsseineBedeutung
anzuerkennen.
9In(Angelelli,1982)IdistinguishedthreedifficultiesrelatedtoV.

ofV,appearstobeamazinglyfallacious.Infact,supposeweviewthestoryaboutthe
threecharactersasapolicematter.Thepoliceistryingtoidentifytheunknowncharacter
theBedeutungofasentence.Withinthiscontext,thediscoveryofthebiconditionalr
qcanbecelebratedasahelpfulstepforwardintheinvestigation.Itamountstosaying
thattheunknownpersonisalways"seentogether"withaknownperson,thatthe
Bedeutungofasentenceisalways"seentogether"withthetruthvalueofthesentence.
Butitwouldbeasurprisingblundertotake,asFregedoes,the"beingalwaystogether"
ofthetwoitemsasareasonsuggestingtheiridentity,orsuggestingthatitisvery
plausibletoconjecturetheiridentity.
Insum,BP1,BP2andVindicatethatFregeispresupposingsomegeneralnotionof
Bedeutungofwhichhehasnotsaidabsolutelyanythinginhisfamouspaperorindeedin
anyofhisotherwritings.Furthermore,onefailstounderstandbothVandFrege'sclaim
concerningitsplausibility.SuchisthecomplexmysteryofFrege'snotionofBedeutung.
(AnassociatedmysteryisthatsofewoftheFregescholarshaveworriedaboutthis.)
Notwithstandingthemystery,Fregemoveson,undisturbedbythereaders'troubles,and
putsVtoadoubletest.TheideaofbothtestsistoshowthatsomethingimpliedbyVis
notfalse.Ofcourse,thisisusefulonlytotheextentthat,ifwediscoveredthatVimplies
somethingfalse,thenVwouldhavetoberejectedasfalsetoo.
LetT1bethethesisthatsingulartermsofsameBedeutungcanbeinterchangedsalva
veritate,andletT2bethethesisthatsentencesofsameBedeutungcanbeinterchanged
salvaveritate.FregeclaimsthatVT1aswellasVT2.InthefirstcaseT1is
regardedbyFregeaswellestablished:Leibniz'slaw.ButFregeisnotentirelysurethat
Leibniz'slawsecuresthetruthofT2.Infact,mostofthefamouspaperberSinnund
BedeutungisdevotedtoadiscussionofapparentcounterexamplestothetruthofT2.The
resultreachedbyFregeattheendofthepaperisthatthetruthofT2hasbeen
establishedwith"sufficientprobability".
ForthepoorreaderwhoonlyknowsaboutBedeutungthetrivialpartonsingularterms,
theurgentproblemisnotthetruthofT1orT2butthetruthoftheconditionalsVT1
andVT2,whichFregeassumesaretrue.WhyshouldtheconjectureV,i.e.theidentity
oftheBedeutungofasentencesandthetruthvalueofsentailthatsingulartermsor
sentencesofequalBedeutungareinterchangeablesalvaveritate?Thisisnot,however,a
newprobleminthelistofdifficultiesencounteredbyareaderofFrege:theassumptionof

BP1makesthetwoconditionalsVT1andVT2evenlogicallytrue.Thus,itisBP1
whatunderliestheFregeantwofoldtestofhisconjecture.Giventhatthesecondtestisthe
mostimportantpartofFrege'spaperberSinnundBedeutung,weseethatBP1isreally
atthecenteroftheclassicpaperconsequently,nottomakesenseofitiscertainly
shameful.

3.Interpretationandclarification
ThedisastrousFregeanpresentationofhisBedeutungconceptforsentencesleavesus
withnochoicebuttolookforsomeinterpretation.Asanticipated,myinterpretationuses
theimportancemeaningoftheGermanwordBedeutung.Theideaisthatbothmeanings
playarole.Ofcourse,onehastosay:importanceforwhat.Fregewasalogicianandsaid
thatlogicisinterestedintruth.Theimportanceofexpressionsis,inFrege,fortruth.The
BedeutungofanexpressionE,brieflyBed(E),intheimportancesenseof'Bedeutung',is
fortruth.Butwhatisit?LetusimitateFrege'sbehaviorinhisplanofdefiningnumberin
GrundlagenorcoursesofvalueinGrundgesetze.Thatis,ratherthanbeginningwithan
attempttodescribethenatureofBed(E),letusbeginbyestablishinganecessaryand
sufficientconditionfortheidentityoftwoBedeutungen,i.e.forstatementsoftheform
'Bed(E)=Bed(E')'.Findingthisnecessaryandsufficientconditionisnotdifficult:The
importancefortruthofE=theimportancefortruthofE'iffEandE'areinterchangeable
salvaveritate.Thisleadstotheformulationofthefollowingprinciple,thatIcallthe
principleB(principleofBedeutung):Bed(E)=Bed(E')iffEandE'areinterchangeable
salvaveritate.
ThisprinciplehasthesameformoftwomostimportantFregeanstatements:onefor
numbers,theotherforWertverlauf.Thisabstractformmayberepresentedasfollows:~a
=~biffa~b.Ifa,bareconcepts,and~istherelationofbijectionamongthe
individualsofaandtheindividualsofb,then~aisthenumberofa,~bthenumberofb.
Whenagaina,bareconcepts,but~istherelationofapplyingtothesameobjects,then
~aistheWertverlaufofa,orthesetofa's.Theformeris,bycurrentfashion,referredto
asHume'sprinciple,thelatteristhefamousAxiomV.Thus,althoughprincipleBdoes
notoccuratallinFrege'swritings,its"soul"isentirelyFregean.
WithprincipleB,theproblemofmakingsenseofBP1disappears:Frege'sfirstprinciple
ofBedeutungbecomestriviallytrue.SupposeEandE'havethesameBedeutung.Emay
occurinarbitrarycompoundexpressionsA(E)whichdonothavetobenecessarily

sentences.ToshowthatBed(A(E))=B(A(E')),letusviewA(E)aspartofanarbitrary
sentenceC.NowthesentenceC(A(E))willhavethesametruthvalueasthesentence
C(A(E'))byprincipleB.ButthismeansthatA(E)andA(E')areinterchangeablesalva
veritateinanycontext,sinceCisarbitrary.HencetheyhavethesameBedeutungby
principleB.
TheproblemofmakingsenseofBP2isgreatlyreducedthankstotheacceptanceof
principleB10.ByprincipleB,anyexpressionEhavingaBedeutungisinterchangeable
salvaveritatewithsomeexpressionE'forexamplewithitselfandanyexpression
thatisinterchangeablesalvaveritatewithsomeexpressionhasaBedeutungidenticalto
theBedeutungofsomeexpression.Thus,intheformulationofprincipleBP2thephrase
"havingaBedeutung"canbereplacedbythephrase"beinginthefieldoftherelationof
interchangeabilitysalvaveritate".Intheequivalentversion,BP2isfarlessmysterious:
"allexpressionsEthatarecomponentsofanexpressionAareinterchangeablesalva
veritate(eachofthemwithsomeexpression)iffAisinterchangeablesalvaveritate".Or:
"alltheexpressionsthatarepartsofacompoundexpressionbelongtothefieldofthe
relationofinterchangeabilitysalvaveritateiffthecompoundexpressionbelongstothat
field."
InordertosolvetheproblemssurroundingtheconjectureV,wehavetorememberthe
structureofFrege'sfundamentalmethod,asappliedbyhimtothedefinitionofnumber
aswellasofWertverlauf.IntheparadigmaticcaseofnumberFregehasreached,aftera
verylongdiscussion,apointwherehehasplentyofsingulartermsoftheform"the
numberoftheconceptF",brieflyN'F,butfeelsunabletoexplainwhatisexactlythe
natureoftheobjectsdenotedbysuchsingulartermshedoesnotknowwhatanumber
is.So,hedecidestostartwithdeterminingnecessaryandsufficientconditionsforthe
identityoftwonumbers:N'F=N'GiffFandGareequinumerous(i.e.thereisabijection
amongtheindividualsfallingunderFandthosefallingunderG).Nowhefeelsfreeto
assigntothesingulartermsoftheformN'Fanydenotationaslongasthisassignment
iscompatiblewiththeformerstipulation.Moregenerally,onehasadomainofobjects{a,
b,c...}andanequivalencerelationx~ydefinedoverit.Onehas,inaddition,singular
terms"~a","~b"...(forexample,"thenumberoftheconceptF")whosemeaningneedsto
berigorouslydetermined.Thenonebeginsbystatingtheconditionthat,whatever~a,~b
are,~aand~bareidenticaliffaandbstandintherelation~.Thesecondpartofthe
10FormoredetailsonhowtohandleBP2cf.(Angelelli,1982).

methodconsistsinpickingappropiatedenotationsforthesingulartermsoftheform"~a",
whereall"appropriate"meansisthatthechoiceofentitiesmustbecompatiblewiththe
identityconditionstatedattheoutset.
Icannotgohereintoadetailedcriticismofthisphilosophicallyterribleprocedure,to
whichIhavereferredasthe"lookingaround"or(withamoredignified,quasiLatin
terminology)"circunspection"method.Amazingly,thisterriblemethodhasbeenpraised
bymanyscholars,andcontinuestobepraised11.HereIjustwanttopointoutthat
assumingthatFregetacitlyappliedtohisBedeutungthesamemethodheappliedto
numberandWertverlauf,theproblemssurroundingtheconjectureVvanish.First,with
BedeutungimportanceitisnolongerawkwardtohavetruthvaluesasBedeutungof
sentences.Itisquitereasonabletosaythatwhatisimportantaboutasentenceisitstruth
value.Secondly,Frege'stakingthebiconditionalrqasareason"driving"himto
conjecturethattheBedeutungofasentencecanbeidentifiedwiththetruthvalueofthe
sentencemakesperfectsensenow.Fregehassingulartermsoftheform"theBedeutung
ofsentences",temporarilylackingadenotation,forwhichheonlyknowswhat
principleBstipulates,namelythat"theBedeutungofsentences=theBedeutungof
sentences*iffsands*"areinterchangeablesalvaveritate.Havinglearned,fromthe
biconditionalrq,thatasentencehasaBedeutungiffithasatruthvalue,Fregethinks
thatitisplausibletoconjecturethattheassignment,toeachsingulartermoftheform
"theBedeutungofsentences",ofthetruthvalueofsasitsdenotationiscompatiblewith
principleB.Ofcourse,aslongasthatcompatibilityisnotfullydemonstrated,
conjectureVwillremainonlyaconjecture.Thisisexactlywhathappened.Assaid,at
theendofberSinnundBedeutung,FregeregardsVasestablished"withsufficient
probability"notasdemonstrated.
Bywayoffinalremarks,Iwouldliketopointout,first,thattheproposedinterpretation
generatessomenewproblemsofitsown12.Secondly,itistemptingtoextendtoSinna
11Thelookingaroundmethodcanbeoverhauledintothemethodofmodernabstraction
(Angelelli,1979).Thereisindeedasecretdesireofdoinggenuineabstractionbehindthe
lookingaroundmethod,showninthefactthatthechoicesmadeinthesecondstagedo
notmatter,aslongastheycomplywiththeconditionputforwardinthefirststage.This
isnojustificationyet,however,torefertothelookingaroundmethod,withouta
previousoverhauling,as"logicalabstraction"(Dummett)or"definitionbyabstraction"
assooftendoneinthe20thcentury,followingacuriousmisunderstandingofPeano's
originalphrase(definizioneperastrazione).
12Someofthemhavebeenconsideredin(Angelelli,1982).

similarinterpretation.Frege'sleadingideaappearstohavebeenthefollowing:Bedeutung
hastodowithWahrheitswert(truthvalue)justasSinnhastodowithErkenntniswert
(cognitivevalue).Thus,thefirststepinananalysisofSinnwouldbetointroducea
"principleofsense",principleS,whichwouldbelikeprincipleBexceptfortheinsertion
ofthenotionofa"person"relativetowhomtheinterchangeabilityoftwoexpressions
salvaveritatetakesplace(Angelelli,1978).Perhaps:"twoexpressionshavethesame
senseiffforeverypersonpthetwoexpressionsareinterchangeablesalvaveritatewithin
anysentenceacceptedastruebyp".InordertoimitateFrege'smethod,oncethis
stipulationismadeconcerningthenecessaryandsufficientconditionsforidentityof
senses,oneshould"lookaround"andfindsuitableentitiestobeassignedtothesingular
termsoftheform"thesenseof'E'"astheirdenotation.Consideringthatonly
"sufficientlyeducated"personsshouldbeadmittedintherangeofthequantifier"forall
persons...",oneeasilyanticipatesthedifficultiesofsuchanapproach.

References
Angelelli,I.,1967,StudiesonGottlobFregeandtraditionalphilosophy,Dordrecht,
Reidel.
Angelelli,I.,1978,"DieZweideutigkeitvonFreges'Sinn'und'Bedeutung'",in
AllgemeineZeitschriftfrPhilosophie,3,p.6266.
Angelelli,I.,1979,"Abstraction,lookingaroundandsemantics",inStudiaLeibnitiana,
Sonderheft8,p.108123.
Angelelli,I.,1982,"Frege'snotionof"Bedeutung",inProceedingsoftheSixth
InternationalCongressofLogic,MethodologyandPhilosophyofScience,Hannover,
1979,NorthHollandPubl.Co.,pp.735753.(Spanishtranslation:"Elconceptofregueano
de"Bedeutung"",inElAnlisisFilosficoenAmricaLatina,FondodeCultura
Econmica,Mxico,1985,p.562579.
Frege,G.,1892,"berSinnundBedeutung",inZeitschriftfrPhilosophieund
philosophischeKritik,N.F.,100,2550.ReprintedinG.Frege:KleineSchriften,ed.by
I.Angelelli,WissenschaftlicheBuchgesellschaft,Darmstadt,1967,second,reviseded.
OlmsVerlag,Germany,1991.
Tugendhat,E.,1970,"Themeaningof'Bedeutung'inFrege",Analysis,30,177189.