Wanting is not expected utility

In this paper, I criticize Ethan Jerzak’s view that ‘want’ has only one sense, the mixed expected utility sense. First, I show that his appeals to ‘really’-locutions fail to explain away the counterintuitive predictions of his view. Second, I present two classes of cases, which I call “preference tie” and “aspiration” cases, that pose difficulties for any expected utility lexical entry for ‘want’. I argue that in order to account for these cases, one needs to concede that ‘want’ has a sense, according to which wanting is a matter of subjectively preferring p-alternatives to not-p-alternatives. Finally, I introduce some considerations for and against the view that ‘want’ also has another sense, which is roughly synonymous with ‘need’

Slur Reclamation and the polysemy/homonymy distinction

Reclamation of a slur involves the creation of a new, positively-valenced meaning that gradually replaces the old pejorative meaning. This means that at a critical stage, the slur is ambiguous. It has been claimed that this ambiguity is polysemy. However, it is far from clear whether the view can explain why the introduction of the new meaning forces the old one out of existence. I argue that this datapoint can be explained by invoking the mechanism of homonymic conflict, and, therefore, that the ambiguity involved in reclamation is homonymy. One generalization that follows from my account is that conventionalized verbal irony, unlike conventionalized metonymy and metaphor, begets homonymy. Along the way, I criticize the standard ways of drawing the distinction between polysemy and homonymy in terms of semantic and etymological relatedness. If the notions of polysemy and homonymy are to be invoked in explanations, they should be understood in terms of how meanings are stored in the mental lexicon. My account also provides an elegant way of conceptualizing the difference between two types of conceptual engineering, namely reclamation and amelioration

Truth-conditional variability of color ascriptions: empirical results concerning the polysemy hypothesis

Recent experimental work has shown that the truth-value judgments of color predications, i.e. utterances of the form “the leaves on my tree are green” or “these walls are brown,” are influenced by slight changes in the context of utterance (Hansen and Chemla 2013, Ziółkowski, 2021). Most explanations of this phenomenon focus on the semantics of color adjectives. However, it is not clear if these explanations do justice to the nuances of the empirical data on context-sensitivity of color predications (Ziółkowski, 2021). In contrast to the adjectival explanations, Agustin Vicente (2015) has recently proposed that the context-sensitivity of color predications can be explained by invoking the polysemy of the noun. In this paper, we present the results of three studies designed to empirically test this hypothesis: a traditional survey experiment (Study 1), an exploratory correlational study inspired by the semantic integration paradigm (Study 2a), and a follow-up experiment (Study 2b) that was designed to mitigate possible shortcomings of Study 2a. The results of our studies present preliminary evidence against Vicente’s theory

Przeciwko rozumieniu luk prawnych jako przesłanek rozumowania prawniczego

The goal of this paper is to identify and criticize an intuitive way of thinking about gaps in the law, which I dub “the input view”. In this approach, legal gaps play the role of premises in legal reasoning in the sense that they trigger the application of, otherwise impermissible, methods of interpretation. The input view thus rests on a sharp distinction between the following two stages of legal interpretation: identification of a legal gap and filling it. The central motivation for embracing this view is to limit the scope of judicial discretion. I argue that the input view fails by its own lights by showing a class of cases in which it actually increases the scope of judicial discretion. My argument exploits the observation that, on any account of legal gaps available to the proponent of the input view, there will be cases in which a judge has discretion to say whether it involves a legal gap or not.Celem niniejszego tekstu jest identyfikacja oraz krytyka intuicyjnego sposobu myślenia o lukach prawnych, który określam mianem „przesłankowego ujęcia”. Na gruncie tego podejścia, luki prawne odgrywają rolę przesłanek w rozumowaniu prawniczym – wystąpienie luki stanowi okoliczność warunkującą zastosowanie, niedopuszczalnych w innych okolicznościach, nieformalistycznych metod interpretacji prawniczej. Ujęcie przesłankowe opiera się zatem na ścisłym rozgraniczeniu dwóch etapów interpretacji prawniczej: etapu identyfikacji luki oraz etapu jej wypełniania. Główną motywacją dla tego poglądu jest chęć ograniczenia dyskrecjonalności sędziowskiej. W niniejszym tekście stawiam tezę, że ujęcie przesłankowe nie jest w stanie podołać temu zadaniu, ponieważ istnieje klasa przypadków, w których prowadzi ono do poszerzenia zakresu dyskrecjonalności sędziowskiej. Mój argument korzysta z obserwacji, że – niezależnie od przyjętego ujęcia luk prawnych – formalista zmuszony będzie przyznać istnienie stanów faktycznych, w których decyzja, czy mamy do czynienia z luką prawną, leży w zakresie władzy dyskrecjonalnej sędziego

Ultra-liberal attitude reports and inference patterns. Results of a survey experiment

Ann believes every vegan should take a B12 supplement. Bob says to his vegan friend Carol, whom Ann has never heard of or met in any way: “Ann believes you should take a B12 supplement.” What's striking about Bob's utterance is that it sounds like a natural thing to say in context, even though it does not accurately capture Ann's state of mind (after all, Carol doesn't even know Carol exists). Indeed, Bob's utterance seems to be based on an inference that takes both his and Carol's beliefs as premises. Let's call such belief reports "revisionist." The present study investigates whether the inference pattern influences involved in revision influences ordinary English speakers' truth-value judgments about revisionist belief reports

Liberal Attitude Reports

Attitude reports are sentences such as “Tomasz thinks the Earth is flat” or “Susan wantsvice cream.” It is commonly assumed that the main reason people use them is to make sense of the reportee’s behavior: to explain their past actions, or predict future ones. To play this role effectively, attitude reports have to accurately describe what is going on in the reportee’s head. Let’s call attitue reports that do not meet this condition “Liberal attitude reports.” For example: Alice is a vegan doctor who thinks that every vegan should take a B12 supplements. It is felicitous to say to your vegan friend, whose existence Alice is unaware of: “Alice thinks you should take a B12 supplement.” Chapter 1 proposes a novel analysis of such belief reports and leverages it to argue that the main function of belief reports is not to make sense of people’s behavior, but to learn from them. Chapter 2 presents the results of a survey experiment probing ordinary people’s intuitions about liberal belief reports. Chapter 3 criticizes a recent analysis of liberal desire reports due to Ethan Jerzak and suggests a way of explaining his data within a more orthodox Kratzerian framework. Chapter 4 strengthens the argument of chapter 3 by showing that the Kratzerian analysis of desire reports does the best job accounting for desire reports under uncertainty. Chapter 5 defends latitudinarianism about belief reports against Saul Kripke’s “The Eiffel Tower Objection.

Associative exportation

According to latitudinarianism, S’s belief that x is F is about x solely in virtue of S’s believing a proposition that ascribes F- ness to x. Saul Kripke (2011b) has recently objected to this view by arguing that it entails that S believes of arbitrary objects that they are F. In this paper I revisit Ernest Sosa’s (1995a, 1995b) notion of associative aboutness to put forward a novel account of mental reference, called ‘associative exportation,’ that evades the troublesome consequence pointed out by Kripke, while preserving the spirit of latitudinarianism. In particular, the proposed view: (1) does not invoke any form of acquaintance with the object of belief; (2) validates a weak reducibility thesis of de re belief to de dicto; (3) is compatible with the observation that our unreflective aboutness judgments are latitudinarian; (4) offers new insights about the notorious tallest- spy objection

Sophisticated Textualism and Sanctions

In this paper I present a difficulty for Matczak’s sophisticated textualism. I argue that, due to his claims about the descriptive character of legal language and the unity of the possible world postulated by the legal text, his theory cannot successfully account for norms that express factors that an authority should take into account when determining the measure of sanction. I reject two replies to this objection that do not require a modification of Matczak’s account. The upshot of my argument is that in order to accommodate norms pertaining to sanctions, Matczak should drop the assumption of unity of the possible world described by the legal text