Linguistics and Philosophy

, Volume 40, Issue 1, pp 37–60 | Cite as

Relativism about predicates of personal taste and perspectival plurality

  • Markus Kneer
  • Agustin Vicente
  • Dan ZemanEmail author
Original Research


In this paper we discuss a phenomenon we call perspectival plurality, which has gone largely unnoticed in the current debate between relativism and contextualism about predicates of personal taste (PPTs). According to perspectival plurality, the truth value of a sentence containing more than one PPT may depend on more than one perspective (subjects, experiencers or judges). Prima facie, the phenomenon engenders a problem for relativism and can be shaped into an argument in favor of contextualism. We explore the consequences of perspectival plurality in depth and assess several possible responses on behalf of advocates of relativism.


Predicates of personal taste Relativism Contextualism Perpsectival plurality 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Brogaard, B. (2008). Moral contextualism and moral relativism. The Philosophical Quarterly, 58, 385–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Cappelen, H., & Hawthorne, J. (2009). Relativism and monadic truth. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cappelen, H., & Lepore, E. (2002). Indexicality, binding and a priori truth. Analysis, 62, 271–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Collins, J. (2013). The syntax of taste. Philosophical Perspectives, 27, 51–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Geurts, B., & Rubio-Fernández, P. (2015). Pragmatics and processing. Ratio, 28, 446–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Glanzberg, M. (2007). Context, content, and relativism. Philosophical Studies, 136, 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Huvenes, T. T. (2012). Varieties of disagreement and predicates of taste. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 90, 167–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Kamp, H. (1971). Formal properties of ‘now’. Theoria, 37, 227–274. Google Scholar
  9. Kaplan, D. (1989). Demonstratives. In J. Almog, J. Perry, & H. Wettstein (Eds.), Themes from Kaplan (pp. 481–563). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Katz, G. (2005). Attitudes toward degrees. In E. Maier, C. Bary, & J. Huitink (Eds.), Proceedings of SuB 9 (pp. 183–196). Nijmegen: Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen.Google Scholar
  11. King, J. (2003). Tense, modality and semantic values. Philosophical Perspectives, 17, 195–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kissine, M. (2012). From contexts to circumstances of evaluation: Is the trade-off always innocuous? Synthese, 184, 199–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kneer, M. (2015). Perspective in language. Dissertation, Institut Jean Nicod/ENS Paris.Google Scholar
  14. Kneer, M. (ms.). Perspectival plurality in natural language.Google Scholar
  15. Kölbel, M. (2004). Indexical relativism vs genuine relativism. International Journal of Philosophical Studies, 12, 297–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kölbel, M. (2009). The evidence for relativism. Synthese, 166, 375–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kölbel, M. (2011). Objectivity, relativism and context dependence. Hagen: Fern Universität Hagen.Google Scholar
  18. Lasersohn, P. (2005). Context dependence, disagreement, and predicates of personal taste. Linguistics and Philosophy, 28, 643–686.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lasersohn, P. (2008). Quantification and perspective in relativist semantics. Philosophical Perspectives, 22, 305–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lasersohn, P. (2009). Relative truth, speaker commitment, and control of implicit arguments. Synthese, 166, 359–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lasersohn, P. (2013). Non-world indices and assessment-sensitivity. Inquiry, 56, 122–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lewis, D. (1980). Index, context, and content. In S. Kanger & S. Ohman (Eds.), Philosophy and grammar (pp. 79–100). Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lihoreau, F. (2012). Personal taste ascriptions and the Sententiality assumption. The Reasoner, 6, 143–144.Google Scholar
  24. MacFarlane, J. (2009). Nonindexical contextualism. Synthese, 166, 231–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. MacFarlane, J. (2012). Relativism. In D. Graff Fara & G. Russell (Eds.), The Routledge companion to the philosophy of language (pp. 132–142). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  26. MacFarlane, J. (2014). Assessment sensitivity: Relative truth and its applications. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Martí, L. (2006). Unarticulated constituents revisited. Linguistics and Philosophy, 29, 135–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Moltmann, F. (2010). Relative truth and the first person. Philosophical Studies, 150, 187–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Nouwen, R. (2005). Monotone amazement. In P. Dekker & M. Franke (Eds.), Proceedings of the fifteenth Amsterdam Colloquium (pp. 167–172). Amsterdam: ILLC.Google Scholar
  30. Pietroski, P., Lidz, J., Hunter, T., & Halberda, J. (2009). The meaning of ‘most’: Semantics, numerosity and psychology. Mind and Language, 24, 554–585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Potts, C. (2005). The logic of conventional implicatures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Recanati, F. (2002). Unarticulated constituents. Linguistics and Philosophy, 25, 299–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Recanati, F. (2007). Perspectival thought: A plea for moderate relativism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Richard, M. (1981). Temporalism and eternalism. Philosophical Studies, 39, 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Rothschild, D., & Segal, G. (2009). Indexical predicates. Mind and Language, 24, 467–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sæbø, K. J. (2009). Judgment ascriptions. Linguistics and Philosophy, 34, 327–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Schaffer, J. (2011). Perspective in taste predicates and epistemic modals. In A. Egan & B. Weatherson (Eds.), Epistemic modality (pp. 179–226). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Sennet, A. (2008). The binding argument and pragmatic enrichment, or, why philosophers care even more than weathermen about ‘raining’. Philosophy Compass, 3, 135–157.Google Scholar
  39. Snyder, E. (2013). Binding, genericity and predicates of personal taste. Inquiry, 56, 278–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Stanley, J. (2005). Knowledge and practical interests. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Stanley, J. (2007). Language in context. Selected essays. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Stephenson, T. (2007). Judge dependence, epistemic modals, and predicates of personal taste. Linguistics and Philosophy, 30, 487–525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Stojanovic, I. (2007). Talking about taste: Disagreement, implicit arguments, and relative truth. Linguistics and Philosophy, 30, 691–706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Vlach, F. (1973). ‘Now’ and ‘then’: A formal study in the logic of tense anaphora. Dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
  45. Zeman, D. (2013). Experiencer phrases, predicates of personal taste and relativism: On Cappelen and Hawthorne’s critique of the operator argument. Croatian Journal of Philosophy XIII, 39, 375–398.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of History and Philosophy of ScienceUniversity of PittsburghPittsburghUSA
  2. 2.Department of Linguistics and Basque StudiesUniversity of the Basque CountryVitoria-GasteizSpain
  3. 3.Department of Linguistics and Basque StudiesUniversity of the Basque CountryVitoria-GasteizSpain
  4. 4.IKERBASQUEBasque Foundation for ScienceBilbaoSpain

Personalised recommendations