当前位置: X-MOL 学术Axiomathes › 论文详情
Our official English website, www.x-mol.net, welcomes your feedback! (Note: you will need to create a separate account there.)
Rollercoasters are not Fun for Mary: Against Indexical Contextualism
Axiomathes Pub Date : 2020-06-25 , DOI: 10.1007/s10516-020-09501-y
Justina Berškytė

Indexical contextualism (IC) is an account of predicates of personal taste (PPTs) which views the semantic content of PPTs as sensitive to the context in which they are uttered, by virtue of their containing an implicit indexical element. Should the context of utterance change, the semantic content carried by the PPT will also change. The main aim of this paper is to show that IC is unable to provide a satisfactory account of PPTs. I look at what I call “pure” IC accounts and show that because they fail to respect empirical data regarding disagreements where neither person is at fault, known as “faultless disagreements”, they must be rejected. I then go on to consider what I call IC “plus” (IC+) accounts. Such accounts attempt to account for the faultlessness of such disagreements using a simple indexical semantics, whilst introducing some extra ingredient to account for the disagreement part. I focus on two main versions of IC+: Gutzmann’s (in: Meier, van Wijnberger-Huitink (eds) Subjective meaning: alternatives to relativism, De Gruyter, Berlin, 2016) expressivist account, and López de Sa’s (in: García-Carpintero, Kölbel (eds) Relative truth, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2008; Erkenntnis 80(Supp 1):153–165, 2015) presuppositional account. I discuss some internal worries with these accounts before going on to some final remarks about IC/IC+ in general. I conclude that neither IC nor IC+ can provide a satisfactory semantics for PPTs.

中文翻译:

过山车对玛丽来说并不有趣:反对索引语境主义

索引语境主义 (IC) 是对个人品味谓词 (PPT) 的一种解释,它认为 PPT 的语义内容对它们所表达的上下文敏感,因为它们包含隐含的索引元素。如果说话的语境发生变化,PPT所承载的语义内容也会发生变化。本文的主要目的是表明 IC 无法提供令人满意的 PPT 说明。我查看了我所谓的“纯”IC 账户,并表明由于他们未能尊重有关双方均无过错的分歧的经验数据,即所谓的“无过错分歧”,因此必须予以拒绝。然后我继续考虑我所说的 IC “plus” (IC+) 账户。这些描述试图使用简单的索引语义来解释这种分歧的完美无缺,同时引入一些额外的成分来解释分歧部分。我关注 IC+ 的两个主要版本:Gutzmann 的(在:Meier, van Wijnberger-Huitink (eds) 主观意义:相对主义的替代品,De Gruyter,柏林,2016 年)表现主义帐户,以及 López de Sa(在:García-Carpintero, Kölbel (eds) 相对真理,牛津大学出版社,牛津,2008 年;Erkenntnis 80(Supp 1):153–165, 2015) 预设说明。在对 IC/IC+ 进行一些最后的评论之前,我先讨论了这些帐户的一些内部担忧。我的结论是 IC 和 IC+ 都不能为 PPT 提供令人满意的语义。2016) 表现主义叙述,以及 López de Sa 的 (in: García-Carpintero, Kölbel (eds) Relative truth, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2008; Erkenntnis 80(Supp 1):153–165, 2015) 预设叙述。在对 IC/IC+ 进行一些最后的评论之前,我先讨论了这些帐户的一些内部担忧。我的结论是 IC 和 IC+ 都不能为 PPT 提供令人满意的语义。2016) 表现主义叙述,以及 López de Sa 的 (in: García-Carpintero, Kölbel (eds) Relative truth, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2008; Erkenntnis 80(Supp 1):153–165, 2015) 预设叙述。在对 IC/IC+ 进行一些最后的评论之前,我先讨论了这些帐户的一些内部担忧。我的结论是 IC 和 IC+ 都不能为 PPT 提供令人满意的语义。
更新日期:2020-06-25
down
wechat
bug