Contextualist treatments of clashes of intuitions can allow that two apparently conflicting claims can both be true. But making true claims is far from the only thing that matters-there are often substantive normative questions about what contextual parameters are appropriate to a given conversational situation. This paper foregrounds the importance of the social power to set contextual standards and how it relates to injustice and oppression, introducing a phenomenon I call "contextual injustice," which has to do with the unjust manipulation of conversational parameters in context-sensitive discourse. My central example applies contextualism about knowledge ascriptions to questions about knowledge regarding sexual assault allegations, but I will also discuss parallel dynamics in other examples of context-sensitive language involving politically significant terms, including gender terms. The discussion further illustrates some of the deep connections between language, epistemology, and social justice.

中文翻译：

---

上下文不公正。

直觉冲突的情境主义处理可以允许两个明显矛盾的主张都可以成立。但是，真正的主张远非唯一要紧的事情，因为关于哪种上下文参数适合给定的对话情况，通常存在实质性的规范性问题。本文提出了社会力量设定情境标准的重要性及其与不公正和压迫的关系，并介绍了一种我称之为“情境不公正”的现象，这种现象与对上下文敏感的话语中对话参数的不当操纵有关。我的中心示例将关于知识归因的情境主义应用于关于性侵犯指控的知识问题，但是我还将在上下文相关语言的其他示例中讨论并行动态，这些示例涉及具有政治意义的术语（包括性别术语）。讨论进一步说明了语言，认识论和社会正义之间的一些深层联系。