Advertisement

Synthese

, Volume 195, Issue 6, pp 2821–2843 | Cite as

Knowledge, intuition and implicature

  • Alexander Dinges
Article

Abstract

Moderate pragmatic invariantism (MPI) is a proposal to explain why our intuitions about the truth-value of knowledge claims vary with stakes and salient error-possibilities. The basic idea is that this variation is due to a variation not in the propositions expressed (as epistemic contextualists would have it) but in the propositions conversationally implicated. I will argue that MPI is mistaken: I will distinguish two kinds of implicature, namely, additive and substitutional implicatures. I will then argue, first, that the proponent of MPI cannot appeal to additive implicatures because they don’t affect truth-value intuitions in the required way. Second, I will argue that the proponent of MPI cannot appeal to substitutional implicatures either because, even though they may have the required effects on truth-value intuitions, they don’t feature in the relevant cases. It follows that MPI is mistaken because whether the proponent of MPI appeals to additive or substitutional implicatures, at least one of the claims that make up her view is false. Along the way, I will suggest principles about implicatures that should be relevant not only to MPI, but to pragmatic accounts of seemingly semantic intuitions in general.

Notes

Acknowledgements

I’m grateful to Ralf Busse, Christian Nimtz, Dan López de Sa, Emanuel Viebahn, Julia Zakkou, the reading group Sprachphilosophie Berlin (SPB), members of research colloquia in Berlin and Hamburg and two anonymous referees for very helpful comments on earlier drafts of the paper.

References

  1. Alexander, J., Gonnerman, C., & Waterman, J. (2014). Salience and epistemic egocentrism: An empirical study. In J. Beebe (Ed.), Advances in experimental epistemology. Advances in Experimental Philosophy, New York, NY: Bloomsbury Publishing.Google Scholar
  2. Bach, K. (1987). Thought and reference. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bach, K. (1994). Conversational impliciture. Mind & Language, 9(2), 124–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bach, K. (2005). The emperor’s new “knows”. In G. Preyer & G. Peter (Eds.), Contextualism in philosophy. Knowledge, meaning, and truth (pp. 51–90). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Black, T. (2008a). A warranted-assertability defense of a moorean response to skepticism. Acta Analytica, 23(3), 187–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Black, T. (2008). Defending a sensitive neo-moorean invariantism. In V. F. Hendricks & D. Pritchard (Eds.), New waves in epistemology (pp. 8–27). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  7. Blome-Tillmann, M. (2013a). Conversational implicatures (and how to spot them). Philosophy Compass, 8(2), 170–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Blome-Tillmann, M. (2013b). Knowledge and implicatures. Synthese, 190(18), 4293–4319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brown, J. (2006). Contextualism and warranted assertibility manoeuvres. Philosophical Studies, 130(3), 407–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Buckwalter, W. (2010). Knowledge isn’t closed on saturday: A study in ordinary language. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 1(3), 395–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Buckwalter, W. (2014). The mystery of stakes and error in ascriber intuitions. In J. Beebe (Ed.), Advances in experimental epistemology (pp. 145–173). Advances in Experimental Philosophy, New York, NY: Bloomsbury Publishing.Google Scholar
  12. Buckwalter, W., & Schaffer, J. (2015). Knowledge, stakes, and mistakes. Noûs, 49(2), 201–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Carston, R. (2016). Pragmatic enrichment. Beyond Gricean rational reconstruction—a response to Mandy Simons. Inquiry, pp. 1–25.Google Scholar
  14. Davis, W. A. (2007). Knowledge claims and context: Loose use. Philosophical Studies, 132(3), 395–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Davis, W. A. (2010). The case for contextualism: Knowledge, skepticism, and context, vol. 1, by Keith DeRose. Mind, 119(476), 1152–1157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. DeRose, K. (2009). The case for contextualism: Knowledge, skepticism, and contex (Vol. 1). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. DeRose, K. (2011). Contextualism, contrastivism, and X-Phi surveys. Philosophical Studies, 156(1), 81–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dimmock, P., & Huvenes, T. (2014). Knowledge, conservatism, and pragmatics. Synthese, 191(14), 3239–3269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dinges, A. (2015). Innocent implicatures. Journal of Pragmatics, 87, 54–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dinges, A. (2016). Skeptical pragmatic invariantism: Good, but not good enough. Synthese, 193(8), 2577–2593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fantl, J., & McGrath, M. (2007). On pragmatic encroachment in epistemology. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 75(3), 558–589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fantl, J., & McGrath, M. (2009). Knowledge in an uncertain world. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Feltz, A., & Zarpentine, C. (2010). Do you know more when it matters less? Philosophical Psychology, 23(5), 683–706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gerken, M. (2015). How to do things with knowledge ascriptions. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 90(1), 223–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Grice, H. P. (1989). Studies in the way of words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Hansen, N., & Chemla, E. (2013). Experimenting on contextualism. Mind & Language, 28(3), 286–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hazlett, A. (2009). Knowledge and conversation. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 78(3), 591–620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Horn, L. R. (1992). The said and the unsaid. Proceedings of SALT, 2, 163–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Huang, Y. (2007). Pragmatics Oxford Textbooks in Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Hugly, P., & Sayward, C. (1979). A problem about conversational implicature. Linguistics and Philosophy, 3(1), 19–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kennedy, C. (2013). A scalar semantics for scalar readings of number words. In I. Caponigro & C. Cecchetto (Eds.), From grammar to meaning (pp. 172–200). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Keysar, B. (1989). On the functional equivalence of literal and metaphorical interpretations in discourse. Journal of Memory and Language, 28(4), 375–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kindermann, D. (forthcoming), ‘Knowledge, pragmatics, and error’, Grazer Philosophische Studien.Google Scholar
  34. Korta, K., & Perry, J. (2012). Pragmatics. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.) The stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Stanford, CA: The Metaphysics Research Lab: Center for the Study of Language and Information: Stanford University).Google Scholar
  35. Larson, M., Doran, R., McNabb, Y. et al. (2009a). Distinguishing the said from the implicated using a novel experimental paradigm. In U. Sauerland, & K. Yatsushiro (Eds.) Semantics and pragmatics. From experiment to theory (Palgrave Studies in Pragmatics, Language and Cognition, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan), pp. 74–93.Google Scholar
  36. Larson, M., Ward, G., McNabb, Y., et al. (2009b). On the non-unified nature of scalar implicature: An empirical investigation. International Review of Pragmatics, 1(2), 211–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Leech, G. N. (1983). Principles of pragmatics (Longman Linguistics Library, 30. New York: Longman).Google Scholar
  38. Leite, A. (2005). Some worries for would-be WAMmers. Grazer Philosophische Studien, 69(1), 101–126.Google Scholar
  39. Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics (Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
  40. Lutz, M. (2014). The pragmatics of pragmatic encroachment. Synthese, 191(8), 1717–1740.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. May, J., Sinnott-Armstrong, W., Hull, J., et al. (2010). Practical interests, relevant alternatives, and knowledge attributions: An empirical study. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 1(2), 265–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Meibauer, J. (2009). Implicature. In J. Mey (Ed.), Concise encyclopedia of pragmatics (pp. 365–378). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  43. Montminy, M. (2007). Epistemic contextualism and the semantics-pragmatics distinction. Synthese, 155(1), 99–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Nagel, J., Juan, V. S., & Mar, R. A. (2013). Lay denial of knowledge for justified true beliefs. Cognition, 129(3), 652–661.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Neale, S. (1992), Paul grice and the philosophy of language. Linguistics and Philosophy, 15/5.Google Scholar
  46. Petersen, E. N. (2014). Denying knowledge. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 44(1), 36–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Pinillos, N. Á. (2012). Knowledge, experiments and practical interests. In J. Brown & M. Gerken (Eds.), Knowledge ascriptions (pp. 192–219). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Pinillos, N. Á., & Simpson, S. (2014). Experimental evidence supporting anti-intellectualism about knowledge. In J. Beebe (Ed.), Advances in experimental epistemology (pp. 9–44). (Advances in Experimental Philosophy, New York, NY: Bloomsbury Publishing).Google Scholar
  49. Pritchard, D. (2010). Contextualism, scepticism and warranted assertibility manoeuvres. In J. K. Campbell, M. O’Rourke, & H. Silverstein (Eds.), Knowledge and skepticism (pp. 85–103). Topics in Contemporary Philosophy, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  50. Roberts, C. (2012). Information structure in discourse: Towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics. Semantics and Pragmatics, 5(6), 1–69.Google Scholar
  51. Rysiew, P. (2001). The context-sensitivity of knowledge attributions. Noûs, 35(4), 477–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Rysiew, P. (2005). Contesting contextualism. Grazer Philosophische Studien, 69(1), 51–70.Google Scholar
  53. Rysiew, P. (2007). Speaking of knowing. Noûs, 41(4), 627–662.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Rysiew, P. (2009), Epistemic contextualism. In E. N. Zalta (ed.), The stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Spring 2009 Edition) (Stanford, CA: The Metaphysics Research Lab: Center for the Study of Language and Information: Stanford University).Google Scholar
  55. Simons, M., Tonhauser, J., Beaver, D. et al. (2010). What projects and why. In N. Li & D. Lutz (Eds.), SALT (20, CLC Publications: Ithaca, NY), pp. 309–327.Google Scholar
  56. Smith, N., & Wilson, D. (1979). Modern linguistics: The results of Chomsky’s revolution. Brighton: Harvester Press.Google Scholar
  57. Sripada, C. S., & Stanley, J. (2012). Empirical tests of interest-relative invariantism. Episteme, 9(1), 3–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Stalnaker, R. C. (1978). Assertion. In P. Cole (Ed.) Pragmatics (Syntax and Semantics, 9, New York, NY: Academic Press), pp. 315–332.Google Scholar
  59. Stalnaker, R. C. (2002). Common ground. Linguistics and Philosophy, 25(5), 701–721.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Stanley, J. (2005). Knowledge and practical interests. (Short Philosophical Books, Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
  61. Stanley, J. (2007). Language in context: Selected essays. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  62. Turri, J. (2016). Epistemic contextualism. An idle hypothesis. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, pp. 1–16.Google Scholar
  63. Wilson, D., & Sperber, D. (1986). Inference and implicature. In C. Travis (Ed.), Meaning and interpretation (pp. 45–75). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Philosophisches SeminarUniversität HamburgHamburgGermany

Personalised recommendations