Advertisement

Philosophical Studies

, Volume 164, Issue 2, pp 485–511 | Cite as

Contextualism about ‘might’ and says-that ascriptions

  • David Braun
Article

Abstract

Contextualism about ‘might’ says that the property that ‘might’ expresses varies from context to context. I argue against contextualism. I focus on problems that contextualism apparently has with attitude ascriptions in which ‘might’ appears in an embedded ‘that’-clause. I argue that contextualists can deal rather easily with many of these problems, but I also argue that serious difficulties remain with collective and quantified says-that ascriptions. Herman Cappelen and John Hawthorne atempt to deal with these remaining problems, but I argue that their attempt fails.

Keywords

Contextualism Invariantism ‘‘Might’’ Epistemic modals Modals Cappelen Hawthorne Disquotation 

Notes

Acknowledgments

I presented an early version of this paper at a workshop on contextualis in the philosophy of language at Queens University in Kingston, Ontario, in September 2009. Thanks to Adèle Mercier and Arthur Sullivan for organizing the workshop and inviting me to speak at it. Thanks to Richard Vallée for his comments on my talk. I also thank those who commented on my paper during the discussion period and afterwards, including Kent Bach, Michael Glanzberg, Nat Hansen, Claire Horisk, Chris Kennedy, Barry Lam, Ishani Maitra, Michael McGlone, François Recanati, and Brett Sherman. Thanks to Andy Egan and Janice Dowell for helpful conversations. Thanks to Michael McGlone for helpful written comments on an earlier version. Thanks to an anonymous referee for many helpful suggestions.

References

  1. Bach, K. (2011). Perspectives on possibilities: Contextualism, relativism, or what? In: A. Egan & B. Weatherson (Eds.), Epistemic modality (pp. 19–59). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Cappelen, H., & Hawthorne, J. (2009). Relativism and monadic truth. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cappelen, H., & Lepore, E. (2005). Insensitive semantics: A defense of semantic minimalism and speech act pluralism. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cappelen, H., & Lepore, E. (2006). Replies. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 73, 469–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. DeRose, K. (1991). Epistemic possibilities. Philosophical Review, 100, 581–605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dowell, J. (2010a). Flexible contextualism about ‘Ought’ and attitude-attributions. Talk delivered at the annual meeting of the Pacific Division of the American Philosophical Association.Google Scholar
  7. Dowell, J. (2010b). A flexibly contextualist account of epistemic modals. Unpublished paper.Google Scholar
  8. Egan, A. (2007). Epistemic modals, relativism, and assertion. Philosophical Studies, 133, 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Egan, A. (2010). Comments on Janice Dowell’s ‘Flexible Contextualism about ‘Ought’ and Attitude-attributions’” (Dowell 2010a). Talk delivered at the annual meeting of the Pacific Division of the American Philosophical Association.Google Scholar
  10. Egan, A., Hawthorne, J., & Weatherson, B. (2005). Epistemic modals in context. In G. Preyer & G. Peter (Eds.), Contextualism in philosophy (pp. 131–169). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Egan, A., & Weatherson, B. (Eds.). (2011). Epistemic modality. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Hacking, I. (1967). Possibility. Philosophical Review, 76, 143–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Humberstone, L., & Cappelen, H. (2006). Sufficiency and excess. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society Supplementary, 80, 265–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kaplan, D. (1989). Demonstratives. In J. Almog, J. Perry, & H. Wettstein (Eds.), Themes from Kaplan (pp. 481–563). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Kratzer, A. (1977). What ‘must’ and ‘can’ must and can mean. Linguistics and Philosophy, 1, 337–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kripke, S. (1979). A puzzle about belief. In A. Margalit (Ed.), Meaning and use (pp. 239–281). Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lasersohn, P. (2005). Context dependence, disagreement, and predicates of personal taste. Linguistics and Philosophy, 28, 643–686.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. MacFarlane, J. (2011). Epistemic modals are assessment-sensitive. In A. Egan & B. Weatherson (2011), pp. 144–178.Google Scholar
  19. Montague, R. (1974). English as a formal language. In R. Thomason (Ed.), Formal philosophy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Nunberg, G. (1993). Indexicality and deixis. Linguistics and Philosophy, 16, 1–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Perry, J. (2009). Directing intentions. In J. Almog & P. Leonardi (Eds.), The philosophy of David Kaplan (pp. 187–207). New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Portner, P. (2009). Modality. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Teller, P. (1972). Epistemic possibility. Philosophia, 2, 303–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. von Fintel, K. (2006). Modality and language. In D. M. Borchert (Ed.), Encyclopedia of philosophy. Detroit: MacMillan Reference USA.Google Scholar
  25. von Fintel, K., & Gillies, A. (2007). An opinionated guide to epistemic modality. In T. S. Gendler & J. Hawthorne (Eds.), Oxford studies in epistemology (Vol. 2, pp. 36–62). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  26. von Fintel, K., & Gillies, A. (2008). CIA leaks. Philosophical Review, 117, 77–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. von Fintel, K., & Gillies, A. (2011). ‘Might’ made right. In A. Egan & B. Weatherson (Eds.) pp. 108–130.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity at BuffaloBuffaloUSA

Personalised recommendations