Can rational communication proceed when interlocutors are uncertain which contents utterances contribute to discourse? An influential negative answer to this question is embodied in the Stalnakerian principle of uniformity, which requires speakers to produce only utterances that express the same content in every possibility treated as live for the purposes of the conversation. The principle of uniformity enjoys considerable intuitive plausibility and, moreover, seems to follow from platitudes about assertion; nevertheless, it has recently proven controversial. In what follows, I defend the principle by developing two arguments for it based on premises reflecting the central aims and assumptions of possibility-carving frameworks for modeling inquiry—that is, frameworks which describe the evolution of individuals’ attitudinal states in terms of set-theoretic operations defined over a domain of objects representing possibilities.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Price includes VAT for USA
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
This is the net price. Taxes to be calculated in checkout.
Almotahari, M., & Glick, E. (2010). Context, content, and epistemic transparency. Mind, 119, 1067–1086.
Cappelen, H., & Hawthorne, J. (2009). Relativism and monadic truth. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gibbard, A. (2007). Propositions: Not what we believe? Unpublished manuscript.
Glanzberg, M. (2011). More on operators and tense. Analysis, 71, 112–123.
Hawthorne, J., & Magidor, O. (2009). Assertion, context, and epistemic accessibility. Mind, 118, 377–397.
Hawthorne, J., & Magidor, O. (2011). Assertion and epistemic opacity. Mind, 119, 1087–1105.
King, J. C. (2003). Tense, modality, and semantic values. Philosophical Perspectives, 17, 195–245.
Lewis, D. (1980). Index, context, and content. In S. Kanger & S. Öhman (Eds.), Philosophy and grammar (pp. 79–100). Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company.
Quine, W. V. (1940). Mathematical logic. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Schlenker, P. (2011). Indexicality and de se reports. In K. von Heusinger, C. Maienborn, & P. Portner (Eds.), Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning (Vol. 2, pp. 1561–1604). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
Stalnaker, R. C. (1970). Pragmatics. Synthese, 22, 272–289.
Stalnaker, R. C. (1978/1999). Assertion. Syntax and Semantics, 9, 315–332. (Cited after the reprint in Stalnaker, Context and content. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999, pp. 78–95).
Stalnaker, R. C. (2009). On Hawthorne and Magidor on assertion, context, and epistemic accessibility. Mind, 118, 399–409.
Stalnaker, R. C. (2014). Context. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
von Stechow, A., & Zimmermann, T. E. (2005). A problem for a compositional treatment of de re attitudes. In G. Carlson & F. J. Pelletier (Eds.), Reference and quantification: The Partee effect (pp. 207–228). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
About this article
Cite this article
Kirk-Giannini, C.D. Uniformity motivated. Linguist and Philos 41, 665–684 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-018-9238-y