Skip to main content
Log in

From Contextualism to Contrastivism

Philosophical Studies Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

REFERENCES

  • Annas, D. (1978): ‘A Contextualist Theory of Epistemic Justification’, American Philosophical Quarterly 15, 213–219.

    Google Scholar 

  • Austin, J.L. (1946): ‘Other Minds’, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 20(suppl.), 149–187.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bach, K. (1994): ‘Conversational Impliciture’, in Mind and Language 9, 124–162.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bach, K. (2000): ‘Quantification, Qualification and Context: A Reply to Stanley and Szabó’, Mind and Language 15, 262–283.

    Google Scholar 

  • Belnap, N. and Steel, T. (1976): The Logic of Questions and Answers, New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky, N. (1981): Lectures on Government and Binding, Dordrecht: Foris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, S. (1988): ‘How to be a Fallibilist’, in Philosophical Perspectives 2, 91–123.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, S. (1999): ‘Contextualism, Skepticism, and the Structure of Reasons’, Philosophical Perspectives 13, 57–89.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeRose, K. (1992): ‘Contextualism and Knowledge Attributions’, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 52, 913–929.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeRose, K. (1995): ‘Solving the Skeptical Problem’, The Philosophical Review 104, 1–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeRose, K. (1999): ‘Contextualism: An Explanation and Defense’, in Greco and Sosa (eds.), The Blackwell Guide to Epistemology (pp. 187–205), Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dewey, J. (1938): Logic: The Theory of Inquiry, New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dretske, F. (1970): ‘Epistemic Operators’, The Journal of Philosophy 67, 1007–1023.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dretske, F. (1972): ‘Contrastive Statements’, Philosophical Review 81, 411–437.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dretske, F. (1981): ‘The Pragmatic Dimension of Knowledge’, Philosophical Studies 40, 363–378.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fiengo, R. and May, R. (1994): Indices and Identity, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldman, A. (1976): ‘Discrimination and Perceptual Knowledge’, Journal of Philosophy 73, 771–791.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hajicova, E., Partee, B. and Sgall, P. (1998): Topic-Focus Articulation, Tripartite Structures, and Semantic Content, Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hale, K. and Keyser, S.J. (1993): ‘On Argument Structure and the Lexical Expression of Syntactic Relations’, in Hale and Keyser (eds.), The View from Building 20: Essays in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger (pp. 53–109), Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamblin, C.L. (1958): ‘Questions’, The Australasian Journal of Philosophy 36, 159–168.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hawthorne, J. (2003): ‘Knowledge and Lotteries’, Oxford: Oxford University Press..

    Google Scholar 

  • Heller, M. (1999): ‘Contextualism and Anti-Luck Epistemology’, Philosophical Perspectives 13, 115–129.

    Google Scholar 

  • Higginbotham, J. (1993): ‘Interrogatives’, in Hale and Keyser (eds.), The View from Building 20: Essays in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger (pp. 195–228), Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Higginbotham, J. (1996): ‘The Semantics of Questions’, in Lappin (ed.), The Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory (pp. 361–383), Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hintikka, J. (1981): ‘On the Logic of an Interrogative Model of Scientific Inquiry’, Synthese 47, 69–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hookway, C. (1996): ‘Questions of Context’, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 96, 1–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan, D. (1977): ‘Demonstratives’, in Almog, Perry and Wettstein (eds.), Themes from Kaplan (pp. 481–563), Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lappin, S. (1996): ‘The Interpretation of Ellipsis’, in Lappin (ed.), The Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory (pp. 145–175), Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levinson, S. (1983): Pragmatics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, D. (1979): ‘Scorekeeping in a Language Game’, Journal of Philosophical Logic 8, 339–359.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, D. (1996): ‘Elusive Knowledge’, The Australasian Journal of Philosophy 74, 549–567.

    Google Scholar 

  • May, R. (1985): Logical Form: Its Structure and Derivation, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neta, R. (forthcoming a): ‘S knows that p’, Nous.

  • Neta, R. (forthcoming b): ‘Skepticism, Contextualism, and Semantic Self-Knowledge’, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research.

  • Partee, B. (1989): ‘Binding Implicit Variables in Quantified Contexts’, in Proceedings of the Chicago Linguistics Society, vol. 25 (pp. 342–365), Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Partee, B. (1991): ‘Topic, Focus, and Quantification’, in Moore and Wyner (eds.), Proceedings from SALT I (pp. 257–280), Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richard, M. (1990): Propositional Attitudes: An Essay on Thoughts and How We Ascribe Them, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rooth, M. (1992): ‘A Theory of Focus Interpretation’, Natural Language Semantics 1, 75–116.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rooth, M. (1996): ‘Focus’, in Lappin (ed.), The Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory (pp. 271–297), Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schaffer, J. (forthcoming a): ‘Skepticism, Contextualism, and Discrimination’, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research.

  • Schaffer, J. (forthcoming b): ‘What Shifts? Thresholds, Standards, or Alternatives?’, in Preyer and Peter (eds.), Contextualism in Philosophy, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Schaffer, J. (ms.): ‘Contrastive Knowledge’.

  • Schiffer, S. (1996): ‘Contextualist Solutions to Scepticism’, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 96, 317–333.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sinnot-Armstrong, W. (ms.): ‘Classy Pyrrhonism’.

  • Sosa, E. (1986): ‘On Knowledge and Context’, The Journal of Philosophy 83, 584–585.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. (1986): Relevance: Communication and Cognition, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stalnaker, R. (1998): ‘On the Representation of Context’, Context and Content (1999) (pp. 96–113), Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stalnaker, R. (this volume): ‘Comments on “From Contextualism to Contrastivism in Epistemology”’.

  • Stanley, J. (2000): ‘Context and Logical Form’, Linguistics and Philosophy 23, 391–434.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stine, G.C. (1976): ‘Skepticism, Relevant Alternatives, and Deductive Closure’, Philosophical Studies 29, 249–261.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Fraassen, B. (1980): The Scientific Image, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vogel, J. (1999): ‘The New Relevant Alternatives Theory’, Philosophical Perspectives 13, 155–180.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, M. (1996): Unnatural Doubts, Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williamson, T. (2000): Knowledge and its Limits, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Schaffer, J. From Contextualism to Contrastivism. Philosophical Studies 119, 73–103 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1023/B:PHIL.0000029351.56460.8c

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/B:PHIL.0000029351.56460.8c

Navigation