Knowledge Attributions in Context of Decision Problems

  • Robert van RooijEmail author
Part of the Synthese Library book series (SYLI, volume 369)


In this paper I will show that knowledge attributions that involve embedded questions are context dependent, and that this context dependence involves decision problems, just as the interpretation of standard answers to questions. I will also indicate that knowledge-that sentences are context dependent in a very same way. As a result, so I will argue, the analysis differs from the standard analyses by not just looking at relevant possible worlds. Instead, on this analysis the notion of fine-grainedness plays an important role. I will use the framework of Optimal Assertions, introduced by Benz and developed by Benz & van Rooij to account for optimal interpretations of assertions.


Knowledge attributions Optimal assertions Decision problems Embedded questions 


  1. Bach, E. (2005). The emperor’s new ‘knows’. In G. Pryer & G. Peter (Eds.), Contextualism in philosophy: On epistomology, language and truth (pp. 51–90). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Benz, A. (2006). Utility and relevance of answers. In A. Benz, G. Jäger, & v. Rooij (Eds), Game theory and pragmatics (pp. 195–219). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  3. Benz, A., & van Rooij, R. (2007). Optimal assertions and what they implicate, a uniform game-theoretic approach. Topoi, 26, 63–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cobreros, P., Égré, P., Ripley, D., & van Rooij, R. (2012). Tolerant, classical, strict. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 41(2), 347–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dretske, F. I. (1970). Epistemic operators. Journal of Philosophy, 67(24), 1007–1023.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Grice, P. (1989). Studies in the way of words. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Groenendijk, J., & Stokhof, M. (1984). Studies in the semantics of questions and the pragmatics of answers. PhD thesis, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  8. Hobbs, J. (1985). Granularity. In Proceedings of the international joint conference on artificial intelligence (IJCAI-85).Google Scholar
  9. Lasersohn, P. (2000). Same, models and representation. In Proceedings of the 10th semantics and linguistic theory conference. Cornell.Google Scholar
  10. Lewis, D. (1996). Elusive knowledge. Australian Journal of Philosophy, 74(4), 549–567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Priest, G. (1979). The logic of paradox. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 8, 219–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Quine, W.V. (1956). Quantifiers and propositional attitudes. The Journal of Philosophy, 53, 117–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Schaffer, J. (2004). From contextualism to contrastivism. Philosophical Studies, 119, 73–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Stalnaker, R. (1988). Belief attribution and context. In R. Grimm & D. Merrill (Eds.), Contents of thought. Tuscon: University of Arizona Press.Google Scholar
  15. Stalnaker, R. (1993). Twin earth revisited. In Proceedings of the Aristotelian society, (Vol. 93, pp. 297–311). London.Google Scholar
  16. Stanley, J. (2004). On the linguistic basis for contextualism. Philosophical Studies, 119(1), 119–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. van Rooij, R. (2003a). Questioning to resolve decision problems. Linguistics and Philosophy, 26, 727–776.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. van Rooij, R. (2003b). Utility of mention some questions. Research on Language and Computation, 2, 401–416.Google Scholar
  19. van Rooij, R. (2003c). Asserting to resolve decision problems. Journal of Pragmatics, 35, 1161–1179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. van Rooij, R. (2012), Vagueness, tolerance and non-transitive entailment. In P. Cintula, C. Fermueller, L. Godo, & P. Hajek (Eds.), Reasoning under vagueness: Logical, philosophical, and linguistic perspectives (pp. 205–223). London: College Publications.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for Logic, Language and Computation (ILLC)University of AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations