Judge dependence, epistemic modals, and predicates of personal taste

被引:0
作者
Tamina Stephenson
机构
[1] University of British Columbia,Department of Linguistics
来源
Linguistics and Philosophy | 2007年 / 30卷
关键词
Epistemic modals; Predicates of personal taste; Context dependency; Relativism; Attitude reports;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
Predicates of personal taste (fun, tasty) and epistemic modals (might, must) share a similar analytical difficulty in determining whose taste or knowledge is being expressed. Accordingly, they have parallel behavior in attitude reports and in a certain kind of disagreement. On the other hand, they differ in how freely they can be linked to a contextually salient individual, with epistemic modals being much more restricted in this respect. I propose an account of both classes using Lasersohn’s (Linguistics and Philosophy 28: 643–686, 2005) “judge” parameter, at the same time arguing for crucial changes to Lasersohn’s view in order to allow the extension to epistemic modals and address empirical problems faced by his account.
引用
收藏
页码:487 / 525
页数:38
相关论文
共 13 条
[1]  
DeRose K.(1991)Epistemic possibilities The Philosophical Review 100 581-605
[2]  
Egan A.(2007)Epistemic modals, relativism, and assertion Philosophical Studies 133 1-22
[3]  
Hacking I.(1967)Possibility Philosophical Review 76 143-168
[4]  
Hamblin C.L.(1973)Questions in Montague English Foundations of Language 10 41-53
[5]  
Kratzer A.(1977)What ‘must′ and ‘can’ must and can mean Linguistics and Philosophy 1 337-355
[6]  
Lasersohn P.(2005)Context dependence, disagreement, and predicates of personal taste Linguistics and Philosophy 28 643-686
[7]  
Lewis D.(1979)Attitudes de dicto and de se Philosophical Review 88 513-543
[8]  
Schwarzschild R.(1994)Plurals, presuppositions and the sources of distributivity Natural Language Semantics, 2 201-248
[9]  
Stalnaker R.(2002)Common ground Linguistics and Philosophy 25 701-721
[10]  
Tenny C.(2006)Evidentiality, experiencers, and the syntax of sentience in Japanese Journal of East Asian Linguistics 15 245-288