Inquisitive Knowledge Attribution and the Gettier Problem

  • Wataru Uegaki
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7218)


A disjunctive belief cannot be described as knowledge if the subject does not justifiably believe a true disjunct, even if the whole disjunctive belief is true and justified (Gettier 1963). This phenomenon is problematic if the verb know semantically operates on a (classical) proposition, as standardly assumed. In this paper, I offer a solution to this problem using Inquisitive Semantics, arguing that know operates on the set of alternative possibilities expressed by its complement. It will also be shown that the proposed semantics for know provides a novel account of its compatibility with both declarative and interrogative complements.


disjunction know-that know-wh attitude verb question-embedding Gettier problem Inquisitive Semantics Alternative Semantics 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Alonso-Ovalle, L.: Disjunction in Alternative Semantics. Ph.D. thesis, University of Massachusetts at Amherst (2006)Google Scholar
  2. Ciardelli, I., Groenendijk, J., Roelofsen, F.: Information, issues, and attention. Ms., ILLC, University of Amsterdam (2010)Google Scholar
  3. DeRose, K.: Contextualism and knowledge attributions. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 52(4), 913–929 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Gettier, E.: Is justified true belief knowledge? Analysis 23(6), 121–123 (1963)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ginzburg, J.: Resolving questions. Linguistics and Philosophy 18(5), 459–527 (Part I) and 567–609 (Part II) (1995)Google Scholar
  6. Goldman, A.: Discrimination and perceptual knowledge. Journal of Philosophy 73(20), 771–791 (1976)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Groenendijk, J.: Inquisitive Semantics: Two Possibilities for Disjunction. In: Bosch, P., Gabelaia, D., Lang, J. (eds.) TbiLLC 2007. LNCS, vol. 5422, pp. 80–94. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Groenendijk, J., Roelofsen, F.: Inquisitive semantics and pragmatics. In: Larrazabal, J.M., Zubeldia, L. (eds.) Meaning, Content, and Argument: Proceedings of the ILCLI International Workshop on Semantics, Pragmatics, and Rhetoric (2009)Google Scholar
  9. Groenendijk, J., Stokhof, M.: Studies on the Semantics of Questions and the Pragmatics of Answers. Ph.D. thesis. University of Amsterdam (1984)Google Scholar
  10. Hamblin, C.L.: Questions in Montague English. Foundations of Language 10(1), 41–53 (1973)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. Kamp, H.: Free choice permission. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 74, 57–74 (1973)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  12. Karttunen, L.: Syntax and semantics of questions. Linguistics and Philosophy 1(1), 3–44 (1977)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kratzer, A.: Facts: Particulars or Information units? Linguistics and Philosophy 25(5-6), 655–670 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kratzer, A., Shimoyama, J.: Indeterminate pronouns: The view from Japanese. In: Otsu, Y. (ed.) The Proceedings of the Third Tokyo Conference on Psycholinguistics, pp. 1–25. Hituji Shobo, Tokyo (2002)Google Scholar
  15. Roelofsen, F., van Gool, S.: Disjunctive Questions, Intonation, and Highlighting. In: Aloni, M., Bastiaanse, H., de Jager, T., Schulz, K. (eds.) Logic, Language and Meaning. LNCS, vol. 6042, pp. 384–394. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Steup, M.: The analysis of knowledge. In: Zalta, E.N. (ed.) Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. The Metaphysics Research Lab and CSLI (2009)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Wataru Uegaki
    • 1
  1. 1.LinguisticsMassachusetts Institute of TechnologyUSA

Personalised recommendations