•  
  •  
 

Abstract

In assessing the veridicality of utterances, we normally seem to assess the satisfaction of conditions that the speaker had been concerned to get right in making the utterance. However, the debate about assessor-relativism about epistemic modals, predicates of taste, gradable adjectives and conditionals has been largely driven by cases in which seemingly felicitous assessments of utterances are insensitive to aspects of the context of utterance that were highly relevant to the speaker’s choice of words. In this paper, we offer an explanation of why certain locutions invite insensitive assessments, focusing primarily on ’tasty’ and ’might’. We spell out some reasons why felicitous insensitive assessments are puzzling and argue briefly that recent attempts to accommodate such assessments (including attempts by John MacFarlane, Kai von Fintel and Anthony Gillies) all fail to provide more than hints at a solution to the puzzle. In the main part of the paper, we develop an account of felicitous insensitive assessments by identifying a number of pragmatic factors that influence the felicity of assessments. Before closing, we argue that the role of these factors extends beyond cases considered in the debate about assessor-relativism and fits comfortably with standard contextualist analyses of the relevant locutions.

Creative Commons License


This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 License.

References

Almér, A. & Björnsson, G. 2009. ‘Relativism, Contextualism and Insensitive Assessments’. Logique et Analyse 52: 363–372.

Bach, K. 2011. ‘Perspectives on possibilities: Contextualism, Relativism, or what?’

Bennett, J. 2003. A Philosophical Guide to Conditionals. Oxford U. P.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/0199258872.001.0001

Björnsson, G. 2011. ‘Towards a Radically Pragmatic Theory of If-Conditionals’. Forthcoming in Making Semantics Pragmatic, (ed) Ken Turner, in Current Research in the Semantics/Pragmatics Interface, Vol 24, Emerald.

Björnsson, G. ms. ‘Do “Objectivist” Features of Moral Discourse and Thinking Support Moral Objectivism?’ Manuscript.

Björnsson, G. & Finlay, S. 2010. ‘Defending Metaethical Contextualism’. Ethics 121: 7–36.

Brogaard, B. 2008. ‘Moral Contextualism and Moral Relativism’. The Philosophical Quarterly 58: 385–409.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9213.2007.543.x

Cappelen, H. & Hawthorne, J. 2009. Relativism and Monadic Truth. Oxford U. P.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199560554.001.0001

DeRose, K. 1991. ‘Epistemic Possibilities’. Philosophical Review 100: 581–605.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2185175

DeRose, K. 1998. ‘Simple Might’s, Indicative Possibilities, and the Open Future’. The Philosophical Quarterly 48: 67–82.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-9213.00082

Dowell, J. 2011. ‘A Flexibly Contextualist Account of Epistemic Modals’. Forthcoming in Philosopher’s Imprint.

Egan, A. 2007. ‘Epistemic Modals, Relativism, and Assertion’. Philosophical Studies 133: 1–22.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11098-006-9003-x

Egan, A. & Weatherson, B. (eds.). 2011. Epistemic Modality. Oxford U. PEgan, A., Hawthorne, J. & Weatherson, B. 2005. ‘Epistemic Modals in Context’. In ‘Contextualism in Philosophy’, 131–168. Oxford U. P.

Finlay, S. ms. ‘Confusion of Tongues: A Theory of Normativity’. Draft of book manuscript.

Glanzberg, M. 2007. ‘Context, Content, and Relativism’. Philosophical Studies 136: 1–29.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11098-007-9145-5

Kölbel, M. 2004. ‘Faultless Disagreement’. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 104: 53–73.

Kölbel, M. 2009. ‘The Evidence for Relativism’. Synthese 166: 375–95.

Kolodny, N. & MacFarlane, J. ms. ‘Ought: Between Subjective and Objective’. Unpublished manuscript, University of California, Berkeley.

Lasersohn, P. 2005. ‘Context Dependence, Disagreement, and Predicates of Personal Taste’. Linguistics and Philosophy 28: 643–686.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10988-005-0596-x

MacFarlane, J. 2005. ‘Making Sense of Relative Truth’. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 105: 321–39.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.0066-7373.2004.00116.x

MacFarlane, J. 2007. ‘Relativism and Disagreement’. Philosophical Studies 132: 17–31.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11098-006-9049-9

MacFarlane, J. 2009. ‘Nonindexical Contextualism’. Synthese 166: 231–50.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11229-007-9286-2

MacFarlane, J. 2011. ‘Epistemic Modals are Assessment-Sensitive’. Forthcoming in Egan and Weatherson 2011.

MacFarlane, J. ms. ‘Assessment Sensitivity: Relative Truth and Its Applications’. Draft of book manuscript.

Nolan, D. 2003. ‘Defending a Possible-Worlds Account of Indicative Conditionals’. Philosophical Studies 116: 215–269.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/B:PHIL.0000007243.60727.d4

Recanati, F. 2007. Perspectival Thought. Oxford U. P.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199230532.001.0001

Richard, M. 2003. ‘Contextualism and Relativism’. Philosophical Studies 119: 215–42.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/B:PHIL.0000029358.77417.df

Richard, M. 2008. When Truth Gives Out. Oxford U. P.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199239955.001.0001

Schaffer, J. 2011. ‘Contextualism for Taste Claims and Epistemic Modals’. Forthcoming in Egan and Weatherson 2011.

Stalnaker, R. 1981. ‘Indicative Conditionals’. In R. Stalnaker W. L. Harper & G. Pearce (eds.) ‘Ifs’, 193–210. Dordrecht: Reidel.

Stephenson, T. 2007. ‘Judge Dependence, Epistemic Modals, and Predicates of Personal Taste’. Linguistics and Philosophy 30: 487–525.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10988-008-9023-4

Tersman, F. 2006. Moral Disagreement. Cambridge U. P.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511570599

von Fintel, K. & Gillies, A. S. 2008. ‘CIA Leaks’. Philosophical Review 117: 77–98.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1215/00318108-2007-025

von Fintel, K. & Gillies, A. S. 2011. “‘Might” Made Right’. Forthcoming in Egan and Weatherson 2011.
http://mit.edu/fintel/fintel-gillies-2011-mmr.pdf

Weatherson, B. 2001. ‘Indicative and Subjunctive Conditionals’. Philosophical Quarterly 51: 200–16.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.0031-8094.2001.00224.x

Weatherson, B. 2009. ‘Conditionals and Indexical Relativism’. Synthese 166: 333–57.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11229-007-9283-5

Share

COinS