Skip to main content
Log in

Context Dependence, Disagreement, and Predicates of Personal Taste*

  • Published:
Linguistics and Philosophy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper argues that truth values of sentences containing predicates of “personal taste” such as fun or tasty must be relativized to individuals. This relativization is of truth value only, and does not involve a relativization of semantic content: If you say roller coasters are fun, and I say they are not, I am negating the same content which you assert, and directly contradicting you. Nonetheless, both our utterances can be true (relative to their separate contexts). A formal semantic theory is presented which gives this result by introducing an individual index, analogous to the world and time indices commonly used, and by treating the pragmatic context as supplying a particular value for this index. The context supplies this value in the derivation of truth values from content, not in the derivation of content from character. Predicates of personal taste therefore display a kind of contextual variation in interpretation which is unlike the familiar variation exhibited by pronouns and other indexicals.

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.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • C. Barker (2002) ArticleTitle‘The Dynamics of Vagueness’ Linguistics and Philosophy 25 1–36 Occurrence Handle10.1023/A:1014346114955

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • D. Beaver (2001) Presupposition and Assertion in Dynamic Semantics CSLI Publications Stanford, California

    Google Scholar 

  • Bhatt, R. and R. Izvorski: 1995, ‘Genericity, Implicit Arguments and Control’, presented at the Seventh Annual Student Conference in Linguistics, University of Connecticut, April 8–9, 1995.

  • G. Carlson (1977) Reference to Kinds in English University of Massachusetts Amherst, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • G. Carlson (1982) ArticleTitle‘Generic Terms and Generic Sentences’ Journal of Philosophical Logic 11 145–181 Occurrence Handle10.1007/BF00278382

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • G. Chierchia (1984) Topics in the Syntax and Semantics of Infinitives and Gerunds University of Massachusetts Amherst, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • E. Doron (1991) ‘Point of View as a Factor of Content’ S. Moore A. Z. Wyner (Eds) Proceedings from Semantics and Linguistic Theory I Cornell University Ithaca, New York 51–64

    Google Scholar 

  • S. D. Epstein (1984) ArticleTitle‘Quantifier-pro and the LF Representation of PRO arb Linguistic Inquiry 15 IssueID3 499–505

    Google Scholar 

  • P. T. Geach (1965) ArticleTitle‘Assertion’ The Philosophical Review 74 449–465

    Google Scholar 

  • Grinder, J. T.: 1971, ‘A Reply to Super Equi-NP Deletion as Dative Deletion’, in Papers from the Seventh Regional Meeting, pp. 101–111, Chicago Linguistic Society, Chicago.

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

    Google Scholar 

  • D. Kaplan (1989) ‘Demonstratives’ J. Almog (Eds) et al. Themes from Kaplan Oxford University Press Oxford 481–563

    Google Scholar 

  • Kimball, J.: 1971, ‘Super Equi-NP Deletion as Dative Deletion’, in Papers from the Seventh Regional Meeting, pp. 142–148, Chicago Linguistic Society, Chicago.

  • J. King (2001) Complex Demonstratives MIT Press Cambridge, Massachusetts

    Google Scholar 

  • M. Kölbel (2002) Truth Without Objectivity Routledge London

    Google Scholar 

  • P. Lasersohn (1999) ArticleTitle‘Pragmatic Halos’ Language 75 522–551

    Google Scholar 

  • J. MacFarlane (2003) ArticleTitle‘Future Contingents and Relative Truth’ The Philosophical Quarterly 53 321–336 Occurrence Handle10.1111/1467-9213.00315

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • R. Montague (1970) ArticleTitle‘Universal Grammar’ Theoria 36 373–398

    Google Scholar 

  • P. Schlenker (2002) ArticleTitle‘A Plea for Monsters’ Linguistics and Philosophy 26 29–120

    Google Scholar 

  • R. Stalnaker (1978) ‘Assertion’ P. Cole (Eds) Syntax and Semantics 9: Pragmatics Academic Press New York 315–332

    Google Scholar 

  • T. Williamson (1994) Vagueness Routledge London

    Google Scholar 

  • C. Wright (1992) Truth and Objectivity Harvard University Press Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Peter Lasersohn.

Additional information

Most of the work for this paper was completed before I became aware of Kölbel (2002), which argues for a very similar position (though without the Kaplan-style formalization I develop here). Readers are referred to Kölbel’s book for a fuller philosophical defense of this position, and for programmatic suggestions of a slightly different approach to formal implementation.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lasersohn, P. Context Dependence, Disagreement, and Predicates of Personal Taste*. Linguist Philos 28, 643–686 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-005-0596-x

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-005-0596-x

Keywords

Navigation