Subjective Meaning: Alternatives to Relativism

261 Pages·2016·3.79 MB·English

by  Cecile Meier, Janneke Van Wijnbergen-huitink

Subjective Meaning
Linguistische Arbeiten
Edited by
Klaus von Heusinger, Gereon Müller,
Ingo Plag, Beatrice Primus,
Elisabeth Stark and Richard Wiese
Volume 559
Subjective
Meaning
Alternatives to Relativism
Edited by
Cécile Meier and Janneke van Wijnbergen-Huitink
ISBN 978-3-11-037472-8
e-ISBN (PDF) 978-3-11-040200-1
e-ISBN (EPUB) 978-3-11-040211-7
ISSN 0344-6727
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
A CIP catalog record for this book has been applied for at the Library of Congress.
Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek
The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutschen Nationalbibliografie;
detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de.
© 2016 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
Satz: le-tex publishing services GmbH, Leipzig
Printing: CPI books GmbH, Leck
♾ Printed on acid-free paper
Printed in Germany
www.degruyter.com
Contents
Preface|VII
JannekevanWijnbergen-Huitink
Subjectivemeaning:Anintroduction|1
DanielGutzmann
Ifexpressivismisfun,goforit!|21
SannaHirvonen
Doingwithoutjudgedependence|47
LaviWolf
Predicatesofpersonaltasteandtheevidentialstep|69
DanZeman
Contextualismanddisagreementabouttaste|91
ChristopherKennedy
Twokindsofsubjectivity|105
CarlaUmbach
Evaluativepropositionsandsubjectivejudgments|127
ChristineGunlogsonundGregoryCarlson
Predicatesofexperience|169
TomRoeper
Propositionsandimplicitargumentscarryadefaultgeneralpointof
view|201
MichaelHegarty
Subjectivemeaningandmodality|227
Index|249

Preface
ThisvolumegrewoutofaworkshopSubjectivemeaning:Alternativestorelativism
thatwasheldattheHumboldt-UniversityinBerlinaspartofthe32ndmeetingof
theDeutscheGesellschaftfürSprachwissenschaft (DGfS)onFebruary23-26,2010
withtheinvitedspeakers,ChristopherKennedy (University ofChicago)andKai
vonFintel(MassachusettsInstituteofTechnology).Asatelliteworkshopwasorga-
nizedatFrankfurtUniversityonFebruary22,2010,withjustthesametwoinvited
speakers.
Thecontributionstotheworkshopandthisvolumeallcirclearoundoneques-
tion: What does it mean to pronounce a subjective judgment? The goal of the
workshopwastobringtogetherscholarsthatagreedtodisagreewithoneofthe
predominantexplanationstotheso-called“problemoffaultlessdisagreement”,
namelyrelativism;theideathatthetruthofasentencedependsontheopinionof
thepersonwhomakesajudgmentofitstruthvalueratherthanonobjectivemat-
tersoffact.Allarticlesinthisvolumeexplorenew,non-relativisticexplanations
forfaultlessdisagreementandtherebyseektosettlethedebateabouttheindis-
pensablenessofrelativism,whichreceivedalotofattentionrecently,bothwithin
linguisticsandthephilosophyoflanguage.
Onevarietyoftheproblemoffaultlessdisagreementoccurswith“predicates
ofpersonaltaste”likeyummyoryucky.Ajudgmentthatcontainsapredicateof
personaltastemaybecontradictedwithoutanyfault.Spinachmaybeyuckyfrom
thepointofviewofonepersonandyummyfromthepointofviewofanother.
Anothervarietyoftheproblemoffaultlessdisagreementoccurswith“epis-
temicmodals”likemight,forexample.Adialogueaboutthewhereaboutsofsome
keysmaystartlikethis:“Didyouseemykeys?”—“Theymightbeonyourdesk.”
Thepersonlookingforherkeysmaycontradictthelastutterance:“No,theyaren’t,
Ialreadycheckedthedesk”.Butshedoesnotmeanthatthespeakersuggestinga
searchonthedeskmadeafalsestatement.Oneofthedialoguepartnersjustdidn’t
haveenoughinformationaboutthekeysandconsideredsomethingpossiblethat
theotherpartneralreadyknewtobeimpossible(SeeKaivonFintel’spresentation
onhttp://web.mit.edu/fintel/fintel-2010-subjective-if-berlin.pdfaccessedMarch
16,2016).
Proponentsofrelativismsolvetheproblemoffaultlessdisagreementforboth
varietiesofsubjectivemeaninginasimilarmanner:Theyrelatethenotionoftruth
to the perspective of a judge (see MacFarlane, 2007 for epistemic modals, and
Lasersohn,2005forpredicatesofpersonaltaste).Indeed,thetwovarietieshave
incommonthatsubjectivejudgmentsaresomehownotreallyfalse(althoughcon-
tradicted).
VIII | Preface
Oneoftheresultsoftheworkshop,however,wasthatthetwovarietiesofsub-
jectivejudgmentsareofafundamentallydifferentkind:Wemayargueendlessly
whoisrightincaseofajudgmentaboutpersonaltaste.Typically,sucharguments
mayneverbesettled.Butinthecaseofasubjectivejudgmentwithanepistemic
modal,weneverarguewhoisright.Thissuggeststhatsubjectivityisnotahomo-
geneous phenomenon, but maycomeindifferent guises. Accordingly, different
testsforsubjectivityneednotplayoutthesame.Onesuchdiagnosticistheac-
ceptability of embedding under a subjectiveattitudeverb likefind. It turns out
thatnotallexpressionsoverwhichwecanfaultlesslydisagreepassthefind-test.
Epistemicmodalsareacaseinpoint(#Ifinditmightberaining).
Thecontributionsinthisvolumeemphasizethesimilaritiesbetweenpredi-
catesofpersonaltasteandepistemicmodalsontheonehandandmoreobjective
adjectivesandmodalsontheotherhand.Theytaketheseasastartingpointfor
theanalysis.Itisarguedthatputativesubjectiveexpressionsdisplayagreatvari-
etyofusesinfaultlessdisagreementscenarios.Inmanycases,thespeakerseems
tointendtomakeaclaimaboutthepreferencesofagroup,orevenaboutthepref-
erencesofpeopleingeneral,ratherthanjustspeakingforherself.Somepeople
conclude from this that faultless disagreement is anillusion. At the very least,
thismakessubjectiveexpressionsmuchmoremundanethanpreviouslythought,
castingdoubtonthecontentionthatsubjectivityisn’tamenabletoatreatmentin
termsofstandardformalsemantics.
Finally,severalpapersinthisvolumehighlightthepragmaticpeculiaritiesof
judgmentsaboutpersonaltasteandepistemicmodaljudgmentsindialoguesit-
uations.Whileonecandisagreewithaspeakerwhocallssomethingyucky,her
statement becomes immune to denial when she explicitly relativizes her state-
menttoherownperspective,forinstancebysayingyuckyforme.Again,arela-
tivisticsemanticsappearsunnecessary,ifwecanexplaintherestrictionsonfelic-
itous(dis)agreementingeneralpragmaticterms.
Wewouldliketothankallcontributorstotheworkshopsandtothisbookfor
theirenthusiasmtoundertakenewandfruitfulinvestigationsinthisfascinating
areaofresearch,leadingtosuchanexcellentsetofpapers.Specialthanksgoto
JeanetteNüssli-Gut(ETHZürich),whointroducedtheBerlinworkshopwithatalk
on“Languageinfoodsensoryscience:Methodologicalconsiderations”andletus
allexperienceoneof thefivebasictastes(together withsweet, sour,bitter and
salty):umami(fromJapaneseumai,whichmaybeinterpretedasasubjectiveval-
uation‘delicious’,orasdescribingtheactualsensoryexperience‘meatytaste’).
Sensoryscience,asappliedtofoodindustry,ontheonehandrestsonobjective
judgmentsoftrainedpeopleandontheotherhandcollectssubjective,hedonistic
judgmentsofnaiveconsumers.Nüssli-Gut’stalkillustratedhowthislasttypeof
judgmentisinfluencedbyvariousfactors,includingageandculturalbackground,
Preface | IX
andhowretastingmaycontributetosettlingthedebatesthatmayensuedueto
individualdifferencesbetweenconsumers.
Weheartilythankseveralexternalanonymouspeerreviewersfortheirjudg-
mentandadvice.Thequalityofthepapersisalsotheirmerit.
Furthermore,wewouldliketothanktheFreundeundFördererderUniversität,
FrankfurtfortheirgenerousfinancialsupportoftheworkshopsinFrankfurtand
Berlin.
WethankKlausvonHeusinger,ourserieseditor,forcommentsonthecon-
tentofthevolume,hiscontinuedsupportandencouragement,SusanneTrissler
andAylineHeller fortheir help inpreparingthefinalmanuscript,DanielGietz
(DeGruyter’seditor)forthealwaysfriendlyfeedbackandpatience,andStephan
Korellatle-tex,forquicklyrespondingtoourtechnicalquestions.
CécileMeierandJannekevanWijnbergen-Huitink
FrankfurtamMainandNijmegen,March2016
References
Lasersohn,Peter.2005. Contextdependence,disagreement,andpredicatesofpersonaltaste.
LinguisticsandPhilosophy28(6).643–686.
MacFarlane,John.2007.Relativismanddisageement.PhilosophicalStudies132(1).17–31.