Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-2rsb6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-12T07:28:44.436Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Beyond Words: Communication, Truthfulness, and Understanding

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 January 2012

Patrick Rysiew
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the 'Save PDF' action button.

Testimony is an indispensable source of information. Yet, contrary to ‘literalism’, speakers rarely mean just what they say; and even when they do, that itself is something the hearer needs to realize. So, understanding instances of testimony requires more than merely reading others' messages off of the words they utter. Further, a very familiar and theoretically well-entrenched approach to how we arrive at such understanding serves to emphasize, not merely how deeply committed we are to testimony as a reliable source of information, but that epistemological questions about testimonial belief are – perhaps even must be – posterior to such a commitment. This result does not itself dictate any particular views on the epistemology of testimony. However, not only does the failure of literalism not support the view that the justificatory basis of testimony-based beliefs is importantly inferential; it in fact undermines a key premise in one important argument for the view that one needs independent, positive reasons for accepting a given testimonial report. More generally, the present paper illustrates how discussions of the epistemology of testimony might usefully interact with an examination of the epistemology of understanding.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Episteme , Volume 4 , Issue 3 , October 2007, pp. 285 - 304
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2007

References

REFERENCES

Adler, Jonathan. 1994. “Testimony, Trust, Knowing.” The Journal of Philosophy 91: 264–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adler, Jonathan. 1997. “Lying, Deceiving, or Falsely Implicating.” The Journal of Philosophy 94: 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adler, Jonathan. 2002. Belief's Own Ethics. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adler, Jonathan. 2007. “Epistemological Problems of Testimony.” In Zalta, Edward N. (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Summer 2007 ed. Retrieved from http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2007/entries/testimony-episprob/Google Scholar
Audi, Robert. 2006. “Testimony, Credulity, and Veracity.” In Lackey & Sosa (2006), pp. 25–49.Google Scholar
Austin, J. L. 1962. How to Do Things with Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Bach, Kent. 1994a. “Semantic Slack: What is Said and More.” In Tsohatzidis (1994), pp. 267–91.Google Scholar
Bach, Kent. 1994b. “Conversational Impliciture.” Mind & Language 9: 124–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bach, Kent. 1994c. “Introduction.” In Harnish (1994), pp. 3–20.Google Scholar
Bach, Kent. 2001. “Speaking Loosely: Sentence Nonliterality.” In French, Peter and Wettstein, Howard (eds.), Midwest Studies in Philosophy, Vol. 25: Figurative Language, pp. 249–63. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
Bach, Kent. 2006. “The Top 10 Misconceptions about Implicature.” In Birner, Betty J. and Ward, Gregory (eds.), Drawing the Boundaries of Meaning: Neo-Gricean Studies in Pragmatics and Semantics in Honor of Laurence R. Horn, pp. 21–30. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bach, Kent and Harnish, Robert M.. 1979. Linguistic Communication and Speech Acts. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bezuidenhout, Anne. 1998. “Is Verbal Communication a Purely Preservative Process?” The Philosophical Review 107: 261–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burge, Tyler. 1993. “Content Preservation.” The Philosophical Review 104(2): 457–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carston, Robyn. 1988. “Implicature, Explicature, and Truth-theoretic Semantics.” In Kempson, R. M. (ed.), Mental Representations: The Interface Between Language and Reality, pp. 155–81. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Christensen, David, and Hilary, Kornblith. 1997. “Testimony, Memory and the Limits of the A Priori.” Philosophical Studies 86: 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coady, C. A. J. 1992. Testimony: A Philosophical Study. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Davidson, Donald. 1984. Inquiries into Truth and Interpretation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Davis, Steve. 2002. “Conversation, Epistemology and Norms.” Mind & Language 17(5): 513–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, Steve (ed.). 1991. Pragmatics: A Reader. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dokic, Jérôme. 2001. “Is Memory Purely Preservative?” In Hoerl, C. and McCormack, T. (eds.), Time and Memory: Issues in Philosophy and Psychology, pp. 213–32. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elgin, Catherine. 2002. “Take it From Me: The Epistemological Status of Testimony.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 65: 291–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fricker, Elizabeth. 1994. “Against Gullibility.” In Matilal, and Chakrabarti, (1994), pp. 125–61.Google Scholar
Fricker, Elizabeth. 1995. “Telling and Trusting.” Mind 104(414): 393–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fricker, Elizabeth. 2002. “Trusting Others in the Sciences: A Priori or Empirical Warrant?” Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science 33: 373–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fricker, Elizabeth. 2003. “Understanding and Knowledge of What is Said.” In Barber, Alex (ed.), Epistemology of Language, pp. 325–66. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fricker, Elizabeth. 2006a. “Testimony and Epistemic Autonomy.” In Lackey and Sosa (2006), pp. 225–50.Google Scholar
Fricker, Elizabeth. 2006b. “Second-Hand Knowledge.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 73(3): 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibbs, Raymond W. and Moise, Jessica F.. 1997. “Pragmatics in Understanding What is Said.” Cognition 62: 51–74.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Graham, Peter J. 1997. “What is Testimony?” The Philosophical Quarterly 47(187): 227–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graham, Peter J. 2000. “The Reliability of Testimony.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 61: 695–708.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graham, Peter J. 2006. “Testimonial Justification: Inferential or Non-Inferential?” The Philosophical Quarterly 56: 84–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grice, H. P. 1989. Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Harnish, R. 1976. “Logical Form and Implicature.” In Bever, T., Katz, J., and Langendoen, T. (eds.) An Integrated Theory of Linguistic Abilities, pp. 464–79. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell. Reprinted in Davis (2002), pp. 316–64.Google Scholar
Harnish, R. (ed.). 1994. Basic Topics in the Philosophy of Language. New York: Prentice-Hall and Harvester Wheatsheaf.Google Scholar
Insole, Christopher J. 2000. “Seeing Off the Local Threat to Irreducible Knowledge by Testimony.” The Philosophical Quarterly 50(198): 44–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jack, Julie. 1994. “The Role of Comprehension.” In Matilal and Chakrabarti (1994), pp. 163–93.Google Scholar
Koenig, Melissa and Paul, Harris. 2005. “The Role of Social Cognition in Early Trust.” Trends in Cognitive Sciences 9(10): 457–59.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lackey, Jennifer 2006. “Introduction.” In Lackey & Sosa (2006), pp. 1–21.Google Scholar
Lackey, Jennifer and Ernest, Sosa (eds.). 2006. The Epistemology of Testimony. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. 2000. Presumptive Meanings: The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, David. 1975/1983. “Languages and Language.” In Gunderson, Keith (ed.), Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Volume VII, pp. 3–35. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Reprinted in Lewis' Philosophical Papers, Volume I, pp. 163–88. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Matilal, B. K. and Chakrabarti, A. (eds.). 1994. Knowing from Words. Boston: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDowell, John. 1977. “On the Sense and Reference of a Proper Name.” Mind 86(342): 159–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDowell, John. 1980/1998. “Meaning, Communication, and Knowledge.” In van Straaten, Z. (ed.), Philosophical Subjects: Essays Presented to P. F. Strawson, pp. 117–39. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Reprinted in McDowell's Meaning, Knowledge, and Reality, pp. 29–50. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Millikan, Ruth Garrett. 1984. Language, Thought, and Other Biological Categories. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Millikan, Ruth Garrett. 2004. Varieties of Meaning: The 2002 Jean Nicod Lectures. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neale, Stephen. 1990. Descriptions. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Plantinga, Alvin. 1993. Warrant: The Current Debate. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pritchard, D. H. 2004. “Testimony.” In Duff, R. A., Farmer, L., Marshall, S. and Tadros, V. (eds.), The Trial on Trial: Truth and Due Process, pp. 101–20. Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
Recanati, François. 1989. “The Pragmatics of What is Said.” Mind & Language 4: 296–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Recanati, François. 1993. Direct Reference: From Language to Thought. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Recanati, François. 2002. “Does Linguistic Communication Rest on Inference?” Mind &Language 17(1–2): 105–26.Google Scholar
Reid, Thomas. 1895/1983. Philosophical Works, 8th ed. Hildesheim: Georg Olms.Google Scholar
Rysiew, Patrick. 2000. “Testimony, Simulation, and the Limits of Inductivism.” Australasian Journal of Philosophy 78(2): 269–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saul, Jennifer. 2002. “What is Said and Psychological Reality: Grice's Project and Relevance Theorists' Criticisms.” Linguistics and Philosophy 25: 347–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shogenji, Tomoji. 2006. “A Defense of Reductionism about Testimonial Justification of Beliefs.” Noû 40(2): 331–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sosa, Ernest. 2006. “Knowledge: Instrumental and Testimonial.” In Lackey & Sosa (2006), pp. 116–23.Google Scholar
Sperber, Dan, and Deirdre, Wilson. 1986a. Relevance: From Communication to Cognition. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sperber, Dan, and Deirdre, Wilson. 1986b. “Loose Talk.” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 86: 153–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stanley, Jason. 2002. “Making it Articulated.” Mind & Language 17(1–2): 149–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tsohatzidis, Savas L. (ed.). 1994. Foundations of Speech Act Theory: Philosophical and Linguistic Perspectives. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ullmann-Margalit, Edna. 1983. “On Presumption.” The Journal of Philosophy 80(3): 143–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van, Cleve James. 2006. “Reid on the Credit of Human Testimony.” In Lackey & Sosa (2006), pp. 50–74.Google Scholar
der Henst, Van, Jean-Baptiste, , Carles, Laure, and Sperber, Dan. 2002. “Truthfulness and Relevance in Telling the Time.” Mind & Language 17(5): 457–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weiner, Matthew. 2003. “Accepting Testimony.” The Philosophical Quarterly 53(211): 256–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, Deirdre, and Dan, Sperber. 1981. “On Grice's Theory of Conversation.” In Werth, P. (ed.), Conversation and Discourse, pp. 155–78. London: Croom Helm. Reprinted in Asa Kasher (ed.), Pragmatics: Critical Concepts, vol. 4, pp. 347–68. London: Routledge, 1997.Google Scholar
Wilson, Deirdre, and Dan, Sperber. 2002. “Truthfulness and Relevance.” Mind 111: 583–632.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wittgenstein, Ludwig. 1953. Philosophical Investigations. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar