Linguistics and Philosophy

, Volume 41, Issue 2, pp 125–164 | Cite as

Outlook-based semantics

  • Elizabeth Coppock


This paper presents and advocates an approach to the semantics of opinion statements, including matters of personal taste and moral claims. In this framework, ‘outlook-based semantics’, the circumstances of evaluation are not composed of a possible world and a judge (as in ‘world-judge relativism’); rather, outlooks replace possible worlds in the role of circumstance of evaluation. Outlooks are refinements of worlds that settle not only matters of fact but also matters of opinion. Several virtues of the framework and advantages over existing implementations of world-judge relativism are demonstrated in this paper. First, world-judge relativism does not actually explain the ‘disagreement’ of ‘faultless disagreement’, while a straightforward explanation suggests itself in outlook-based semantics. Second, outlook-based semantics provides an account of subjective attitude verbs that can capture lack of opinionatedness. Third, outlook-based semantics unproblematically explains the connection-building role of aesthetic discourse and the group-relevance of discretionary assertions, while capturing the same effects in world-judge relativism obviates the purpose of the judge parameter. Finally, because the proposed circumstances of evaluation (outlooks) are entirely analogous to possible worlds, the framework is easy to use and extend.


Relativism Predicates of personal taste Subjectivity Indexicality Truth 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.



This work was generously funded by Riksbankens Jubileumsfond’s Pro Futura Scientia Program, administered by the Swedish Collegium for Advanced Study, Uppsala, Sweden. I am grateful to the resident fellows at the Swedish Collegium for Advanced Study, especially Anandi Hattiangani and Christian List, for inspiration and feedback on this work during the 2014–2015 academic year, when I was in residence there and developing these ideas. I am also grateful to Robin Cooper for the initial inspiration and thoughtful feedback along the way. I would also like to thank the excellent anonymous reviewers of this paper for L&P and audience members at the University of Gothenburg, Uppsala University, Stockholm University, Stanford University, and the 2017 Workshop on Subjectivity at the University of Chicago, especially the organizers, Christopher Kennedy and Malte Willer, whose feedback greatly improved the paper.


  1. Barker, C. (2002). The dynamics of vagueness. Linguistics and Philosophy, 25, 1–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barker, C. (2013). Negotating taste. Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary. Journal of Philosophy, 56(203), 240–257.Google Scholar
  3. Beaver, D., & Krahmer, E. (2001). A partial account of presupposition projection. Journal of Logic, Language and Information, 10, 147–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Björnsson, G., & Alexander, A. (2010). The pragmatics of insensitive assessments: Understanding the relativity of assessments of judgments of personal taste, epistemic modals, and more. In B. H. Partee, M. Glanzberg, & J. Skilters (Eds.), Formal semantics and pragmatics: Discourse, context and models (pp. 1–45). Manhattan, KS: New Prairie Press.Google Scholar
  5. Blackburn, S. (1984). Spreding the word. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  6. Blackburn, S. (1998). Ruling passions. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  7. Blomqvist, F. (2014). Outlook-based semantics: A semantic theory for predicates of personal taste. Undergraduate thesis, University of Gothenburg.Google Scholar
  8. Bouchard, D.-É. (2012a). Long-distance degree quantification and the grammar of subjectivity. McGill University dissertation.Google Scholar
  9. Bouchard, D.-É. (2012b). The partial factivity of opinion verbs. In Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 17.Google Scholar
  10. Brogaard, B. (2008). Moral contextualism and moral realism. The Philosophical Quarterly, 58(232), 386–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Büring, D. (2003). On d-trees, beans, and b-accents. Linguistics and Philosophy, 26, 511–545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bylinina, L. (in press). Judge-dependence in degree constructions. Journal of Semantics.Google Scholar
  13. Cappelen, H., & Hawthorne, J. (2009). Relativism and monadic truth. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Clark, H. (1992). Arenas of language use. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  15. Clark, H., & Schaefer, E. (1989). Contributing to discourse. Cognitive Science, 13, 259–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dowty, D., Wall, R. E., & Peters, S. (1981). Introduction to Montague semantics. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  17. Egan, A. (2007). Epistemic modals, relativism, and assertion. Philosophical Studies, 133(1), 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Egan, A. (2010). Disputing about taste. In R. Feldman & T. A. Warfield (Eds.), Disagreement (pp. 247–86). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Farkas, D., & Bruce, K. (2010). On reacting to assertions and polar questions. Journal of Semantics, 27, 81–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fleisher, N. (2013). The dynamics of subjectivity. In Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) (Vol. 23, pp. 276–294). Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.Google Scholar
  21. Gallin, D. (1975). Intensional and higher order modal logic. Amsterdam: North Holland Press.Google Scholar
  22. Gibbard, A. (1990). Wise choices, apt feelings. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  23. Gibbard, A. (2003). Thinking how to live. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Ginzburg, J. (1996). Dynamics and the semantics of dialogue. In J. Seligman & D. Westerståhl (Eds.), Logic, language and computation (pp. 221–237). Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
  25. Ginzburg, J. (2012). The interactive stance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Glanzberg, M. (2007). Context, content and relativism. Philosophical Studies, 136, 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Groenendijk, J., & Roelofsen, F. (2009). Inquisitive semantics and pragmatics. Presented at the Workshop on Language, Communication, and Rational Agency at Stanford, May 2009.Google Scholar
  28. Groenendijk, J., & Stokhof, M. (1984). Studies on the semantics of questions and the pragmatics of answers. University of Amsterdam dissertation.Google Scholar
  29. Hirvonen, S. (2014). Predicates of personal taste and perspective dependence. University College London dissertation.Google Scholar
  30. Huvenes, T. T. (2012). Varieties of disagreement and predicates of taste. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 90, 167–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kaplan, D. (1977). Demonstratives: An essay on the semantics, logic, metaphysics, and epistemology of demonstratives and other indexicals. In J. Almog, J. Perry, & H. Wettstein (Eds.), Themes from Kaplan (pp. 267–298). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Kaplan, D. (1978). On the logic of demonstratives. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 8, 81–98.Google Scholar
  33. Kaplan, D. (1989). Afterthoughts. In J. Almog, J. Perry, & H. Wettstein (Eds.), Themes from Kaplan. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Kennedy, C., & Willer, M. (2016). Subjective attitudes and counterstance contingency. Proceedings of SALT, 26, 913–933.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kölbel, M. (2002). Truth without objectivity. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  36. Kölbel, M. (2003). Faultless disagreement. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 104, 53–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. LaPierre, S. (1992). A functional partial semantics for intensional logic. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, 33(4), 517–541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lasersohn, P. (2005). Context dependence, disagreement, and predicates of personal taste. Linguistics and Philosophy, 28, 643–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lasersohn, P. (2009). Relative truth, speaker commitment, and control of implicit arguments. Synthese, 166, 359–374.Google Scholar
  40. Lewis, D. (1979). Attitudes de dicto and de se. Philosophical Review, 88, 513–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. List, C. (2013). Free will, determinism, and the possibility of doing otherwise. Noûs, 48(1), 156–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. List, C., & Pivato, M. (to appear). Emergent chance. The Philosophical Review.Google Scholar
  43. MacFarlane, J. (2003). Future contingents and relative truth. The Philosophical Quarterly, 53(212), 321–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. MacFarlane, J. (2007). Relativism and disagreement. Philosophical Studies, 132, 17–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. MacFarlane, J. (2011). Epistemic modals are assessment-sensitive. In A. Egan & B. Weatherson (Eds.), Epistemic modality (pp. 144–78). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Moltmann, F. (2010). Relative truth and the first person. Philosophical Studies, 150, 187–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Montague, R. (1973). The proper treatment of quantification in ordinary English. In J. Hintikka, J. Moravcsik & P. Suppes (Eds.), Approaches to natural language: Proceedings of the 1970 Stanford workshop on grammar and semantics (Vol. 49 Synthese Library, pp. 221–242). Dordrecht: Springer.
  48. Moruzzi, S. (2008). Assertion, belief and disagreement: A problem for truth-relativism. In M. García-Carpintero & M. Kölbel (Eds.), Relative truth (pp. 207–224). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Muskens, R. (2006). Higher order modal logic. In J. van Benthem & F. Volter (Eds.), Handbook of modal logic (pp. 621–653). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  50. Ninan, D. (2010). De se attitudes: Ascription and communication. Philosophy Compass, 5(7), 551–567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Pearson, H. (2013). A judge-free semantics for predicates of personal taste. Journal of Semantics, 30(1), 103–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Rabinowicz, W. (2008). Value relations. Theoria, 74, 18–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Richard, M. (2004). Contextualism and relativism. Philosophical Studies, 119(1), 215–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Richard, M. (2008). When truth gives out. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Roberts, C. (1996). Information structure in discourse: Towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics. In J.-H. Yoon & A. Kathol (Eds.), OSU Working Papers in Linguistics 49: Papers in semantics (pp. 91–136). Columbus: The Ohio State University.Google Scholar
  56. Rosenkranz, S. (2008). Frege, relativism and faultless disagreement. In M. García-Carpintero & M. Kölbel (Eds.), Relative truth (pp. 225–237). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Sæbø, K. J. (2009). Judgment ascriptions. Linguistics and Philosophy, 32, 327–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Schaffer, J. (2011). Perspective in taste predicates and epistemic modals. In A. Egan & B. Weatherson (Eds.), Epistemic modals (pp. 179–226). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Stalnaker, R. (1978). Assertion. In Syntax and semantics (Vol. 9). Academic Press.Google Scholar
  60. Stalnaker, R. (2014). Context. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Stephenson, T. (2007a). Judge dependence, epistemic modals, and predicates of personal taste. Linguistics and Philosophy, 30, 487–525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Stephenson, T. (2007b). Towards a theory of subjective meaning. MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
  63. Stojanovic, I. (2007). Talking about taste: Disagreement, implicit arguments, and relative truth. Linguistics and Philosophy, 30, 691–706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Yablo, S. (2016). Aboutness. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Boston UniversityBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations