What the metasemantics of know is not

被引:0
作者
Peter van Elswyk
机构
[1] University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee,Philosophy Department
来源
Linguistics and Philosophy | 2020年 / 43卷
关键词
Epistemic contextualism; Question under discussion; Contrastivism; Knowledge; Metasemantics;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
Epistemic contextualism in the style of Lewis (in Aust J Philos 74:549–567, 1996) maintains that ascriptions of knowledge to a subject vary in truth with the alternatives that can be eliminated by the subject’s evidence in a context. Schaffer (in Philos Stud 119:73–103, 2004, in Oxford Stud Epistemol 1:235–271, 2005, in Philos Phenomenol Res 75:383–403, 2007, in Philos Issues 18(1):1–19, 2008, in: Schaffer, Loewer (eds) A companion to David Lewis, pp 473–490. Wiley, Hoboken, 2015), Schaffer and Knobe (in Noûs 46:675–708, 2012), and Schaffer and Szabó (in Philos Stud 168(2):491–543, 2014) hold that the question under discussion or qud always determines these alternatives in a context. This paper shows that the qud does not perform such a role for know and uses this result to draw a few lessons about the metasemantics of context-sensitivity.
引用
收藏
页码:69 / 82
页数:13
相关论文
共 46 条
[1]  
Anderbois S(2015)At-issue proposals and appositive impositions in discourse Journal of Semantics 32 93-138
[2]  
Brasoveanu A(2009)Knowledge and presuppositions Mind 118 241-294
[3]  
Henderson R(2018)Together they stand: Interpreting not-at-issue content Language and Speech 62 199-226
[4]  
Blome-Tillmann M(2007)Context, content, and relativism Philosophical Studies 136 1-29
[5]  
Frazier L(1973)Questions in Montague English Foundations of Language 10 41-53
[6]  
Dillon B(1996)Questions of context Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 96 1-16
[7]  
Clifton C(2016)Shapes of conversation and at-issue content Semantics and Linguistics Theory 26 1022-1042
[8]  
Glanzberg M(2011)Quantifiers and epistemic contextualism Philosophical Studies 155 383-398
[9]  
Hamblin CL(2015)Ignorance and presuppositions Mind 124 1207-1219
[10]  
Hookway C(2011)Without ’focus’ The Baltic International Yearbook of Cognition, Logic and Communication 6 1-50