Relative truth and the first person

Abstract

In recent work on context-dependency, it has been argued that certain types of sentences give rise to a notion of relative truth. In particular, sentences containing predicates of personal taste and moral or aesthetic evaluation as well as epistemic modals are held to express a proposition (relative to a context of use) which is true or false not only relative to a world of evaluation, but other parameters as well, such as standards of taste or knowledge or an agent. I will argue that the sentences that apparently give rise to relative truth should be understood by relating them in a certain way to the first person. More precisely, such sentences express what I will call 'first-person-based genericity', a form of generalization that is based on an essential first-person application of the predicate. The account differs from standard relative truth account in crucial respects: it is not the truth of the proposition expressed that is relative to the first person; the proposition expressed by a sentence with a predicate of taste rather has absolute truth conditions. Instead it is the propositional content itself that requires a first-personal cognitive access whenever it is entertained. This account, I will argue, avoids a range of problems that standard relative truth theories of the sentences in question face and explains a number of further peculiarities that such sentences display.Keywords Relative truth Á First person Á De se Á Predicates of taste Á Genericity Á Propositional attitudes In recent work on context-dependency, it has been argued that certain types of sentences give rise to a notion of relative truth. In particular, sentences containing predicates of personal taste and moral or aesthetic evaluation as well as epistemic F. Moltmann (modals are held to express a proposition (relative to a context of use) which is true or false not only relative to a world of evaluation, but other parameters as well, such as standards of taste or knowledge or an agent. Thus, a sentence like chocolate tastes good would express a proposition p that is true or false not only at a world of evaluation, but relative to the additional parameter as well, such as a parameter of taste or an agent.I will argue that the sentences that apparently give rise to relative truth should be understood by relating them in a certain way to the first person. More precisely, such sentences express what I will call first-person-based genericity, a form of generalization by which the speaker quantifies over every one x in the relevant domain as someone he identifies with, allowing the predicate to apply to x as if it applied to the speaker himself. This account differs from standard relative truth theories in crucial respects: it is not the truth of the proposition expressed that is relative to the first person; the proposition expressed by a sentence with a predicate of taste rather has absolute truth conditions. Instead it is the propositional content itself that requires a first-personal cognitive access whenever it is entertained. Thus, if ...

Focus fronting, unexpectedness, and evaluative implicatures

“…In our view, the evaluation proper can coexist with the immediacy of a heightened emotional state, but should not be identified with it. One problem that we have to leave open is the relationship between our evaluative implicatures and the so called "predicates of personal taste" (see Lasersohn 2005, Stephenson 2007, Moltmann 2009, Pearson 2012. A lexical predicate like surprising, which conveys a surprise import, seems to be a predicate of personal taste: here, contrary to MF, the "evaluative" component is clearly part of the at-issue meaning.…”

The Conversational Role of Centered Contents

“…I agree with Moltmann (2006Moltmann ( , 2010 that "one" in (5a) requires genericity, and that the normality and typicality conditions will be context-sensitive. However, I believe that this is exactly the genericity that is already present in (J).…”

Context and Disagreement

“…the way in which the dialogue in (2) evolves suggests that the intended reading for Kathy's initial claim is one on which she occupies the relevant experiencer argument, while the way in which it evolves in (3) suggests that the intended reading is a generic one, that is to say, that the experiencer argument is bound by a covert generic operator (see e.g. Moltmann (2010) and Pearson (2013) for the idea that taste predicates are covertly generic). Consequently, (2) provides a case in which the faultlessness intuition wins, so to speak, whereas (3) provides a case in which Kathy and rob disagree, pretty much in the way in which they might disagree over the truth of some general descriptive claim, such as, say, the claim that parsley contains more iron than cilantro does.…”