, Volume 166, Issue 2, pp 359–374 | Cite as

Relative truth, speaker commitment, and control of implicit arguments

  • Peter LasersohnEmail author


Recent arguments for relativist semantic theories have centered on the phenomenon of “faultless disagreement.” This paper offers independent motivation for such theories, based on the interpretation of predicates of personal taste in certain attitude contexts and presuppositional constructions. It is argued that the correct interpretation falls out naturally from a relativist theory, but requires special stipulation in a theory which appeals instead to the use of hidden indexicals; and that a hidden indexical analysis presents problems for contemporary syntactic theory.


Relativism Taste Factives 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Beaver D. (1997). Presupposition. In: van Benthem J., ter Meulen A. (eds), Handbook of logic and language. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 939–1008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Egan A., Hawthorne J., Weatherson B. (2005). Epistemic modals in context. In: Preyer G., Peter G. (eds), Contextualism in philosophy: Knowledge, meaning and truth. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 131–168Google Scholar
  3. von Fintel, K., & Gillies, A. S. (2006). CIA leaks. Ms., MIT, Cambridge, MA, and University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
  4. Kaplan D. (1989). Demonstratives: An essay on the semantics, logic, metaphysics, and epistemology of demonstratives and other indexicals. In: Almog J., Perry J., Wettstein H. (eds), Themes from Kaplan. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 481–563Google Scholar
  5. Kipasky P., Kiparsky C. (1971). Fact. In: Steinberg D.D., Jakobovits L.A. (eds), Semantics: An interdisciplinary reader. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 345–369Google Scholar
  6. Kölbel M. (2002). Truth without objectivity. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  7. Kölbel M. (2003). Faultless disagreement. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 104: 53–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Lasersohn P. (2005). Context dependence, disagreement, and predicates of personal taste. Linguistics and Philosophy 28, 643–686CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Lewis D. (1979). Attitudes de dicto and de se. The Philosophical Review 88, 513–543CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. MacFarlane J. (2003). Future contingents and relative truth. The Philosophical Quarterly 53, 321–336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. MacFarlane J. (2007). Semantic minimalism and nonindexical contextualism. In: Preyer G., Peter G. (eds), Context-sensitivity and semantic minimalism: New essays on semantics and pragmatics. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 240–250Google Scholar
  12. Morgan J. (1970). On the criterion of identity for noun phrase deletion. In Papers from the Sixth Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago Linguistic Society, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, pp. 380–389Google Scholar
  13. Moltmann, F. (2006). First-person oriented genericity and relative truth. Ms., IHPST, Paris.Google Scholar
  14. Quine W.V. (1968). Propositional objects. Critica 2, 3–22Google Scholar
  15. Richard M. (2004). Contextualism and relativism. Philosophical Studies 119, 215–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Stalnaker R. (1999). Context and content: Essays in intentionality in speech and thought. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  17. Williamson T. (1994). Vagueness. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of LinguisticsUniversity of IllinoisUrbanaUSA

Personalised recommendations