Philosophical Studies

, Volume 165, Issue 2, pp 509–526

Presupposition and the a priori



This paper argues for and explores the implications of the following epistemological principle for knowability a priori (with ‘\(\mathcal{K}_\mathcal{A}\)’ abbreviating ‘it is knowable a priori that’).
  • (AK) For all ϕ, ψ such that ϕ semantically presupposes ψ: if \(\mathcal{K}_\mathcal{A}\phi, \,\mathcal{K}_\mathcal{A}\psi .\)

Well-known arguments for the contingent a priori and a priori knowledge of logical truth founder when the semantic presuppositions of the putative items of knowledge are made explicit. Likewise, certain kinds of analytic truth turn out to carry semantic presuppositions that make them ineligible as items of a priori knowledge. On a happier note, I argue that (AK) offers an appealing, theory-neutral explanation of the a posteriori character of certain necessary identities, as well as an interesting rationalization for a commonplace linguistic maneuver in philosophical work on the a priori.


A priori Semantic presupposition Contingent a priori Necessary a posteriori Kripke Epistemology of logic 


  1. Boghossian, P. (1996). Analyticity reconsidered. Noûs, 30, 360–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Evans, G. (1985). Reference and contingency. In J. McDowell (Ed.), Collected papers (pp. 178–213). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Geurts, B. (1997). Good news about the description theory of names. Journal of Semantics, 14, 319–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Hale, B., & Wright, C. (2000). Implicit definition and the a priori. In P. Boghossian & C. Peacocke (Eds.), New essays on the a priori (pp. 286–319). New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Hawthorne, J. (2002). Deeply contingent a priori knowledge. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 65, 247–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Heim, I. (1991). On the projection problem for presuppositions. In S. Davis (Ed.), Pragmatics (pp. 397–405). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Heim, I., & Kratzer, A. (1998). Semantics in generative grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  8. Horwich, P. (2000). Stipulation, meaning, and apriority. In P. Boghossian & C. Peacocke (Eds.), New essays on the a priori (pp. 150–170). New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Roberts, C. (1989). Modal subordination and pronominal anaphora in discourse. Linguistics and Philosophy 12, 683–721 doi:10.1007/BF00632602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Swanson, E. (2006). Interactions with context. Ph.D. Dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  11. von Fintel, K. (2004). Would you believe it? The King of France is back! Presuppositions and truth-value intuitions. In M. Reimer & A. Bezuidenhout (Eds.) Descriptions and beyond (pp. 269–296). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  12. von Fintel, K., & Gillies, A. S. (2012). Must... stay... strong! Natural Language Semantics. doi:10.1007/s11050-010-9058-2.
  13. von Fintel, K., & Heim, I. (2007). Intensional Semantics. Unpublished manuscript, MIT, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  14. Williamson, T. (2002). Knowledge and its limits. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations