Single Scoreboard Semantics
In disputes involving context-sensitive terms, speakers can seem to be contradicting one another, even as they also appear to be pushing the ‘conversational score’ in different directions. Several options for how to deal with such situations are presented, culminating in the ‘gap view’, a supervaluational approach. The ‘asymmetrical gap’ view is presented as a way to handle the relation between claims made at different times in a single conversation and also to handle cases of ‘one-way disputes’: cases where a speaker in one context disputes a claim made by another speaker in a different context. By showing the issues addressed to be general issues that arise even with terms that are uncontroversially context-sensitive, and by showing ways to resolve such issues, this chapter rebuts objections to contextualism based on its alleged inability to respect our sense that disputants in arguments over what is ‘known’ are contradicting one another.
Oxford Scholarship Online requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books within the service. Public users can however freely search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter.
If you think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.