231
T H E O R I A
eISSN 0495-4548 – eISSN 2171-679X
No ma e who: Wha makes one a ela i is ?
(No impo a quién: ¿qué hace a alguien ela i is a?)
Edua do Pé ez-Na a o*
Uni e sidad de G anada
ABSTRACT: As pa o he a gumen ha ela i ism and con ex ualism a e no hing bu no a ional a-
ian s o each o he , S ojano ic holds ha con ex ualism is lexible enough o achie e wha e e ela i ism
migh do i he ma e is wha u h- alue is assigned o each pai o sen ence and con ex . In his pape , I
eply o his s a emen by a guing ha con ex ualism canno be made as lexible as ela i ism wi hou in
ac u ning i in o a e sion o ela i ism. The key o my esponse o S ojano ic is ha , while ela i ism
ela i izes u e ance u h, con ex ualism does no , so pa ame e s ha a e no ixed a he con ex o u e-
ance will be accessible o he ela i is , bu no o he con ex ualis . Al hough he ela i i y o u e ance
u h ollows as soon as p oposi ional u h is ela i ized o con ex s o assessmen , as he ela i is does,
i is easy o lose sigh o his ac i we iden i y he con ex o assessmen wi h he assesso ’s con ex . Hence,
he poin o his pape is ha he di e ence be ween ela i ism and con ex ualism is no one as o whose
pa ame e s play a ole in de e mining he sen ence’s u h- alue. I i we e, con ex ualism could indeed be
made jus as lexible as ela i ism.
KEYWORDS: ela i ism; con ex ualism; u h; con ex ; assessmen .
RESUMEN: Como pa e de su a gumen ación de que el ela i ismo y el con ex ualismo no son más que a-
ian es no acionales el uno del o o, S ojano ic sos iene que el con ex ualismo es lo su icien emen e lexible
como pa a log a cuan o es é al alcance del ela i ismo si la cues ión es qué alo de e dad se asigna a cada
pa de o ación y con ex o. En es e a ículo, espondo a es a a i mación a gumen ando que el con ex ualismo
no puede hace se an lexible como el ela i ismo sin con e i lo, de hecho, en una e sión del ela i ismo. La
cla e de mi espues a a S ojano ic es que, mien as que el ela i ismo ela i iza la e dad de la p o e encia, el
con ex ualismo no lo hace, po lo que aquellos pa áme os que no es én ijados en el con ex o de p o e encia se-
án accesibles pa a el ela i is a, pe o no pa a el con ex ualis a. Aunque la ela i idad de la e dad de la p o-
e encia esul a an p on o como la e dad p oposicional se ela i iza a un con ex o de e aluación, como hace
el ela i is a, es ácil pe de de is a es e hecho si iden i icamos el con ex o de e aluación con el con ex o del
e aluado . Po lo an o, la esis de es e a ículo es que la di e encia en e el ela i ismo y el con ex ualismo no
concie ne al agen e cuyos pa áme os juegan un papel en la de e minación del alo de e dad de la o ación. Si
lo hicie a, el con ex ualismo pod ía e ec i amen e hace se an lexible como el ela i ismo.
PALABRAS CLAVE: ela i ismo; con ex ualismo; e dad; con ex o; e aluación.
* Co espondence o: Edua do Pé ez-Na a o. Depa amen o de Filoso ía I, Facul ad de Psicología, Uni e sidad de G anada, Campus Uni e si-
a io de Ca uja, s/n (18011, G anada, Spain)– [email p o ec ed] – h ps://o cid.o g/0000-0002-2240-2380
How o ci e: Pé ez-Na a o, Edua do (2021). «No ma e who: Wha makes one a ela i is ?»; Theo ia. An In e na ional Jou nal o Theo y, His-
o y and Founda ions o Science,36(2), 231-242. (h ps://doi.o g/10.1387/ heo ia.22067).
Recei ed: 2020-09-28; Final e sion: 2021-03-08.
ISSN0495-4548 - eISSN2171-679X / © 2021 UPV/EHU
This wo k is licensed unde a
C ea i e Commons A ibu ion-NonComme cial-NoDe i a i es 4.0 In e na ional License
Theo ia, 2021, 36(2), 231-242
h ps://doi.o g/10.1387/ heo ia.22067
Edua do Pé ez-Na a o
232 Theo ia, 2021, 36/2, 231-242
1. In oduc ion
A emp s o explain he pa icula beha io o sen ences ea u ing p edica es o pe -
sonal as e ha e esul ed in heo ies such as con ex ualism (Glanzbe g, 2007; Scha e ,
2011) and ela i ism (Kölbel, 2004; Lase sohn, 2005; Recana i, 2007; MacFa lane, 2014).
S ojano ic (2007, 2012), howe e , claims ha ela i ism and con ex ualism a e no hing
bu no a ional a ian s o each o he . This claim in ol es wo poin s. Fi s , he wo heo-
ies p edic exac ly he same u h- alue o each pai o sen ence and se o ci cums ances
o e alua ion, so ela i is and con ex ualis sen ences a e in e ansla able (2007, pp.700-
703). Second, i he ma e is wha u h- alue is assigned o each pai o sen ence and con-
ex , his is no a seman ic issue and, anyway, con ex ualism is lexible enough o achie e
wha e e ela i ism migh do (2012, pp. 627-628). While he i s o S ojano ic’s poin s
has been con es ed by Lase sohn (2008, pp. 317-318), he second one has gone ela i ely
unacknowledged. In his pape , I eply o i by a guing ha con ex ualism canno be made
as lexible as ela i ism wi hou in ac u ning i in o a e sion o ela i ism.
S ojano ic is consis en in he use o he label “con ex ualism”, bu she conside s di e -
en e sions o ela i ism. To a oid con usion, I will e e o one as “nonindexical con ex-
ualism” and he o he as “assesso ela i ism”. Wha S ojano ic calls “con ex ualism”, o
i s pa , will be e e ed o as “indexical con ex ualism” he e. Indexical con ex ualism will
be he iew acco ding o which a pe sonal as e s anda d is supplied by he con ex o u e -
ance and de e mines pa o he p oposi ion exp essed (Glanzbe g, 2007; Scha e , 2011).
Nonindexical con ex ualism will also make he s anda d de e mined by he con ex o u -
e ance, bu i will include i in he ci cums ances o e alua ion (Kölbel, 2004; Recana i,
2007). Assesso ela i ism, inally, will loca e he s anda d in he ci cums ances o e alua-
ion, bu make i de e mined by he con ex o assessmen (Lase sohn, 2005;1 MacFa lane,
2014). S ojano ic’s i s poin is hen ha ela i ism, unde s ood as ei he nonindexical
con ex ualism o assesso ela i ism, and con ex ualism, unde s ood as indexical con ex-
ualism, p edic exac ly he same u h- alue o each pai o sen ence and se o ci cum-
1 Al hough Lase sohn does no use he wo ds “con ex o assessmen ”, some clues can be ound in his
pape ha he is e e ing o some hing along hese lines when he uses he wo d “con ex ”. In pa icu-
la , he says ha “ he objec i e ac s o he si ua ion o u e ance do no uniquely de e mine a con ex ”,
and elabo a es:
(A)ny conc e e si ua ion o u e ance will de e mine as many di e en con ex s in ou echnical sense as
he e a e indi iduals—one o each po en ial judge. We should no limi ou choice o judges o indi iduals
who a e p esen in he si ua ion o u e ance; John’s u e ance o Rolle coas e s a e un migh be ue o alse
ela i e o Ma y, e en i she was no p esen when he spoke. No , I hink, should we e en limi ou choice o
judges o hose indi iduals who e en ually in e p e he u e ance o assess i o u h; we would no wan o
say ha The chili is as y is objec i ely ue simply because so ew people e e conside he issue ha hey hap-
pen all acciden ally o ag ee. (Lase sohn, 2005, pp. 669-670)
As we will see, i p oposi ional u h is no de e mined by a con ex ha is ixed by he “conc e e si u-
a ion o u e ance”, i will be ela i e o he con ex o assessmen . In a oo no e o his passage, Lase -
sohn claims ha hese conside a ions dis inguish his p oposal om MacFa lane’s, as he la e equi es
ac ual assesso s (2005, p. 670, n. 18). Howe e , his claim depends on he iden i ica ion o MacFa -
lane’s con ex o assessmen wi h he assesso ’s con ex , agains which i is he aim o his pape o a -
gue.
h ps://doi.o g/10.1387/ heo ia.22067 233
No ma e who: Wha makes one a ela i is ?
s ances o e alua ion. He second poin is ha , al hough i may seem ha only assesso el-
a i ism can assign di e en u h- alues o he same pai o sen ence and con ex , indexical
con ex ualism (and, by he same oken, nonindexical con ex ualism) can do his oo. While
Lase sohn’s (2008, pp. 317-318) a gumen , which will be e iewed la e , allows one o e-
ply o S ojano ic’s i s poin , my aim is o eply o he second one.
The key o my esponse o S ojano ic is ha , while ela i ism ela i izes u e ance
u h, con ex ualism does no (López de Sa, 2011, p. 108; Shi e and Wea he son, 2017,
pp. 689-690; Fe a i, 2019, p. 481). Thus, pa ame e s ha a e no ixed a he con ex o
u e ance will be accessible o he ela i is , bu no o he con ex ualis . The ela i i y
o u e ance u h ollows as soon as p oposi ional u h is ela i ized o con ex s o as-
sessmen , as he ela i is does. Howe e , i is easy o lose sigh o his ac i we iden i y
he con ex o assessmen wi h he assesso ’s con ex —i he pa ame e s supplied by he
con ex o assessmen a e always hose o he assesso , con ex ualism will indeed be able
o make hem he ones ela i e o which p oposi ional u h is o be assigned. Hence, he
message o ake home om his pape is ha he di e ence be ween ela i ism and con-
ex ualism is no one as o whose pa ame e s play a ole in de e mining he sen ence’s
u h- alue. I i we e, con ex ualism could indeed be made jus as lexible as ela i ism, as
S ojano ic claims.
The s uc u e o he pape is as ollows. In sec ion 2, I in oduce he heo ies unde dis-
cussion; I p esen S ojano ic’s claim as i appea s in he 2007 pape and, a e e iewing La-
se sohn’s eply o i , he upda ed e sion o S ojano ic’s claim ha appea s in he 2012 pa-
pe . In sec ion 3, I show ha ela i iza ion o p oposi ional u h o con ex s o assessmen
amoun s o ela i iza ion o u e ance u h, and use his esul o eply o S ojano ic’s
(2012) claim. As we will see in sec ion 4, howe e , ela i iza ion o p oposi ional u h o
con ex s o assessmen will only amoun o ela i iza ion o u e ance u h i we a e clea
ha he con ex o assessmen is no necessa ily he assesso ’s con ex . I he pa ame e s
supplied by he con ex o assessmen a e no necessa ily hose o he assesso , con ex ual-
ism will only be lexible enough i we u n i in o a e sion o ela i ism.
2. Con ex ualism, ela i ism, and he “no a ional a ian ” claim
In his sec ion, I b ie ly in oduce he iews wi h which his pape will deal—indexical con-
ex ualism, nonindexical con ex ualism, and assesso ela i ism. As al eady ad anced, when
S ojano ic alks abou con ex ualism, she is e e ing o indexical con ex ualism; when she
alks abou ela i ism, she is e e ing ei he o nonindexical con ex ualism o o assesso
ela i ism. In he 2007 pape , S ojano ic de ends ha indexical con ex ualism, on he one
hand, and nonindexical con ex ualism and assesso ela i ism, on he o he , a e no hing
bu no a ional a ian s o each o he . In he 2012 pape , she ocuses on assesso ela i ism.
A e in oducing he heo ies, hus, I e iew S ojano ic’s (2007) a gumen , Lase sohn’s
(2008, pp. 317-318) eply o i , and S ojano ic’s (2012) upda ed a gumen .
Indexical con ex ualism, nonindexical con ex ualism, and ela i ism ha e been p o-
posed as heo ies ha allow us o accoun o di e en a eas o na u al language. Following
S ojano ic’s own use, he e I will ocus on wha hese heo ies ha e o say abou p edica es
o pe sonal as e. In pa icula , le us conside wha will happen, acco ding o each heo y,
when a speake , le us call he Alice, says “Black pudding is as y”. Acco ding o indexical
Edua do Pé ez-Na a o
234 Theo ia, 2021, 36/2, 231-242
con ex ualism (see, o ins ance, Glanzbe g, 2007; Scha e , 2011), in so doing, Alice ex-
p esses a p oposi ion ha con ains a pe sonal as e s anda d. Wha s anda d his is will
depend on he con ex o u e ance. Thus, “Black pudding is as y” will exp ess one p op-
osi ion o ano he depending on he con ex a which i is u e ed. This ea u e has been
said o allow indexical con ex ualism o explain why we can ha e aul less disag eemen s in
which i seems ha none o he speake s is a aul (Kölbel, 2002, 2004; W igh , 2006).
Acco ding o nonindexical con ex ualism (Kölbel, 2004; Recana i, 2007), o i s pa ,
when Alice says “Black pudding is as y” she exp esses a p oposi ion ha is ue o alse only
wi h espec o a pe sonal as e s anda d de e mined by he con ex o u e ance. This s and-
a d is no pa o he p oposi ion bu pa o he ci cums ances o e alua ion, which a e he
possible sequences o pa ame e s wi h espec o which we may ask o he u h- alue o a
p oposi ion (see Kaplan, 1977, p. 502). By claiming his, nonindexical con ex ualis s a e able
o accoun o he aul lessness o aul less disag eemen while s ill ende ing such exchanges
as ins ances o disag eemen . Indexical con ex ualism has been said no o be able o do his,
as i cha ac e izes pa icipan s in aul less disag eemen s as exp essing compa ible con en s.2
Assesso ela i ism (Lase sohn, 2005;3 MacFa lane, 2014), inally, coincides wi h non-
indexical con ex ualism in ha i akes “Black pudding is as y”, as u e ed by Alice, o ex-
p ess a p oposi ion ha is ue o alse only ela i e o a pe sonal as e s anda d. Howe e ,
assesso ela i ism akes he s anda d o be de e mined no by he con ex o u e ance, bu
by he con ex o assessmen , i.e., he con ex om which we wonde whe he Alice has said
some hing ue o alse. MacFa lane akes his ea u e o make his ela i ism able o ac-
coun no only o aul less disag eemen bu also o e ac ion— he speech ac ha one
pe o ms in saying “I ake ha back” o “I e ac ha ” (2014, p. 108).
Al hough indexical con ex ualism, nonindexical con ex ualism, and assesso ela i -
ism ha e been de ended as al e na i es o each o he , some au ho s ha e claimed ha hey
a e no ha di e en . This idea has been mos powe ully de ended by S ojano ic (2007,
2012), who a gues ha ela i ism (which encompasses bo h he iew ha I ha e called
“nonindexical con ex ualism” and he one I ha e called “assesso ela i ism”) and con ex-
ualism (“indexical con ex ualism”) a e “no much mo e han no a ional a ian s o one
ano he ” (2007, p. 691). She does so by de ining a seman ics o each heo y and a bidi ec-
ional ansla ion p ocedu e ha allows us o p edic he u h- alue o a ela i is sen ence
(a sen ence o he language o nonindexical con ex ualis o ela i is seman ics) gi en ha
o i s (indexical) con ex ualis e sion, and ice e sa (2007, pp. 700-703). This p ocedu e
makes wha in a con ex ualis seman ics is a syn ac ic a gumen a pa ame e o he ci cum-
s ances o e alua ion, and wha in a ela i is seman ics is a pa ame e o he ci cums ances
o e alua ion a syn ac ic a gumen . The esul is ha he wo al e na i es will p edic ex-
ac ly he same u h- alue o each pai o sen ence and se o ci cums ances o e alua ion.
2 Indexical con ex ualis s ha e p oposed a numbe o s a egies o accoun o disag eemen wi hou in-
compa ibili y o con en s (see, o ins ance, Glanzbe g, 2007; Sundell, 2011; Hu enes, 2012; Plun-
ke and Sundell, 2013; Ma ques, 2014, 2015; Ab eu Za ale a, 2020; o a nice su ey, see S ojano ic,
2017). My aim he e, howe e , is only o gi e a pic u e o he easons o indexical con ex ualism, non-
indexical con ex ualism, and assesso ela i ism o a ise. Thus, i is beyond he scope o he pape o
discuss whe he hese easons a e sound, and, in pa icula , whe he he e was any need o con ex ual-
ism o become nonindexical.
3 See n. 1.
h ps://doi.o g/10.1387/ heo ia.22067 235
No ma e who: Wha makes one a ela i is ?
S ojano ic’s claim has been con es ed by Lase sohn (2008, pp. 317-318), who holds
ha he s is no a p ope ansla ion—con ex ualism and ela i ism will assign di e en
con en s o he same sen ence in con ex , unless con ex ualism ixes he alues o p onouns
in a way ha u ns i in o a e sion o ela i ism. In a Kaplanian amewo k, a con en is
i s assigned o an exp ession wi h espec o a con ex , and hen a u h- alue is assigned
o ha con en wi h espec o an index. Ei he he alues o p onouns a e ixed in he s ep
ha goes om exp essions and con ex s o con en s, o hey a e ixed in he s ep ha goes
om con en s and indices o u h- alues. In he o me case, he con ex ualis sen ence
will be assigned di e en con en s depending on he assignmen o alues o a iables,
while he ela i is sen ence will always ecei e he same one, so he ansla ion will no be
comple e. In he la e case, he con en o he con ex ualis sen ence will be ue o alse
only ela i e o an assignmen o alues o a iables, so we will s ay wi h an index ins ead o
an implici a gumen . Thus, he only way o make con ex ualism deli e he same con en
as ela i ism is o u n i in o a e sion o he la e .
S ojano ic’s claim, o be ai , is ha ela i ism and con ex ualism a e equi alen
“ om he iewpoin o seman ics” (2007, p. 691). She de elops his idea in he sequel
o he 2007 pape (2012). The e, she dis inguishes be ween ela i ism as a heo y ha
ela i izes p oposi ional u h o con ex s o u e ance (wha I ha e called “nonindexi-
cal con ex ualism”) and ela i ism as a heo y ha ela i izes i o con ex s o assessmen
(wha I ha e called “assesso ela i ism”). Rela i ism in he i s sense, she a gues jus like
she did in he 2007 pape , is no hing bu a no a ional a ian o con ex ualism, again un-
de s ood as indexical con ex ualism. The no el y o S ojano ic’s (2012) pape lies in a -
guing agains ela i ism in he second sense as a seman ic al e na i e o con ex ualism as
well. Fo i is ue ha indexical con ex ualism will assign a pa icula u h- alue o any
sen ence as u e ed in a con ex , while assesso ela i ism will be compa ible wi h a a i-
e y o u h- alues o he same sen ence-in-con ex . Bu wha u h- alue we assign o a
sen ence-con ex pai is no a ma e o seman ics. Seman ics, as S ojano ic unde s ands
i , is “ he machine y ha maps, in a composi ional manne , he sen ences o a language
o u h- alues (as a unc ion o app op ia e pa ame e s)” (2012, p. 627). Thus unde -
s ood, assesso ela i is seman ics and indexical con ex ualis seman ics a e equi alen —
hey will assign he same u h- alue o each pai o sen ence and sequence o pa ame e s.
The only di e ence will be ha indexical con ex ualis s will claim ha i is he con ex
o u e ance ha de e mines he sequence o pa ame e s ela i e o which he sen ence
is o be e alua ed, while assesso ela i is s will allow each con ex o assessmen o de-
e mine a di e en sequence o pa ame e s. This can be pu in e ms o wha S ojano ic
calls “adici y-diminishing de ini ions o u h” (2012, p.627). The indexical con ex ual-
is one is his:
[[S]] (c) =T ue* i de o all assignmen s , [[S]] (c, wc, c, jc, ) = T ue
whe e S is a sen ence, c is a con ex , and wc, c, and jc a e espec i ely he wo ld, ime, and
judge4 de e mined by c (2012, p. 627). This adici y-diminishing de ini ion o u h allows
4 Al hough S ojano ic wo ks wi h judges ins ead o pe sonal as e s anda ds, hese a e equi alen o he
pu poses o his pape .

Edua do Pé ez-Na a o
236 Theo ia, 2021, 36/2, 231-242
us o mo e om u h as a many-place p edica e o u h as a wo-place one. The assesso
ela i is de ini ion o u h, by con as , is his:
[[S]] (cU, cA) =T ue* i de o all assignmen s , [[S]] (c, wcU, cU, jcA, ) = T ue
whe e wcU and cU a e he wo ld and ime de e mined by cU, which is he con ex o u -
e ance, and jcA is he judge de e mined by cA, which is he con ex o assessmen (2012,
p.628). He e, howe e , we canno ge as a as o ge a wo-place u h p edica e; ins ead,
we ha e o sa is y ou sel es wi h a h ee-place one. A any a e, discussing which adici y-di-
minishing p inciple we should emb ace is no doing seman ics, bu wha S ojano ic calls,
ollowing MacFa lane (2003, 2012), “pos seman ics”.
So, “b idging p inciples” (S ojano ic, 2012, p. 629) ha gi e us a sen ence’s u h- alue
a a con ex o u e ance as a unc ion o ha sen ence’s u h- alue ela i e o a ce ain se-
quence o pa ame e s a e a ma e o pos seman ics. Assesso ela i ism is dis inguished
om indexical con ex ualism only wi h espec o he pos seman ics, no wi h espec
o he seman ics. A plausible answe o his kind o c i icism would be o bi e he bulle
and jus mo e he whole discussion o he pos seman ic le el; he ques ion would hen be
which o hese wo pos seman ic p inciples accoun s be e o he linguis ic e idence ha
we ha e. S ojano ic, howe e , hinks ha such a discussion would make no sense, o i
would depend on he assump ion ha we need some b idging p inciple o ano he . This
is he kind o assump ion ha she ejec s—which con ex de e mines he ele an pa am-
e e is no se once and o all, bu is a ma e o p agma ics. Di e en con e sa ional se -
ings can make di e en con ex s he ones o look a ; some imes, he ele an pe sonal
as e s anda d, o ins ance, will be ha o he speake , while in o he cases i may be ha
o he assesso (2012, pp. 631-632). In ac , i may be nei he o hem, since he absence
o a b idging p inciple allows pa ame e s o ake i ually any alue, i needed. S ojano ic
hinks ha his lexibili y indica es he app oach.
The aim o his pape , hough, is o show ha con ex ualism canno be made as lexi-
ble as S ojano ic needs i o be wi hou u ning i in o a e sion o ela i ism. Con ex ual-
ism is lexible enough o make he assesso ’s s anda d he ele an one, bu his will make i
as powe ul as ela i ism only i wha ela i ism ells us o ake in o accoun is he assesso ’s
s anda d. In he nex wo sec ions, I show ha his is no how ela i ism should be cha ac-
e ized. Al hough I ind Lase sohn’s a gumen con incing, in wha ollows I will p oceed as
i i we e no enough o eply o S ojano ic. I will a gue ha , e en i Lase sohn’s a gumen
did no succeed, con ex ualism and ela i ism would s ill be in e es ingly di e en —e en i
hei seman ics we e equi alen , hei pos seman ics would no be. In a way, hus, my a gu-
men can be seen as adding up o Lase sohn’s.
3. Agains he “no a ional a ian ” claim
The way I ha e cha ac e ized i in his pape , assesso ela i ism is he iew ha ela i -
izes p oposi ional u h o a con ex o assessmen . In his sec ion, I show ha his mo e
amoun s o he ela i iza ion o u e ance u h as well. This is he kind o hing ha will
nex be shown o s and ou o he con ex ualis ’s each.
h ps://doi.o g/10.1387/ heo ia.22067 237
No ma e who: Wha makes one a ela i is ?
Assesso ela i ism ela i izes p oposi ional u h o con ex s o assessmen . By ela i -
izing p oposi ional u h o con ex s o assessmen , assesso ela i ism also ela i izes u -
e ance u h.5 This is so because ela i izing p oposi ional u h o con ex s o assessmen
means o claim ha p oposi ional u h is a unc ion o sen ences, con ex s o u e ance,
and con ex s o assessmen . In claiming his, he ela i is denies ha p oposi ional u h
is a unc ion o sen ences and con ex s o u e ance alone. Sen ences and con ex s o u e -
ance oge he a e enough o cha ac e ize u e ances— he e is no hing le o say abou an
u e ance once we ha e said wha sen ence has been u e ed and a wha con ex . Hence,
he assesso ela i is denies ha p oposi ional u h is a unc ion o u e ances, and hus
akes mo e han one u h- alue o be compa ible wi h he same u e ance. Fo ins ance,
i Alice’s u e ance o he sen ence “Black pudding is as y” exp esses a p oposi ion whose
u h- alue is ela i e o a con ex o assessmen , he u h o Alice’s u e ance i sel will be
ela i e— he u h o he u e ance will no ge se led by looking a he u e ance alone.
This is he ea u e ha makes assesso ela i ism in e es ingly di e en om bo h indexical
and nonindexical con ex ualism.
O cou se, he cha ac e iza ion o assesso ela i ism as he heo y ha ela i izes u -
e ance u h is no no el. Se e al au ho s (see, o ins ance, López de Sa, 2011, p. 108;
Shi e and Wea he son, 2017, pp. 689-690; Fe a i, 2019, p. 481) ha e aken his o be
assesso ela i ism’s de ining ea u e, and MacFa lane himsel is qui e conscious ha his
cha ac e iza ion o assesso ela i ism as he iew ha ela i izes p oposi ional u h o
con ex s o assessmen can be shown o be equi alen o his. Nex , hough, I show ha he
idea ha assesso ela i ism ela i izes u e ance u h can be e ec i ely pu a he se ice
o eplying o S ojano ic’s claim ha con ex ualism can be made o be jus as lexible as el-
a i ism.
Remembe whe e we le S ojano ic’s a gumen a ion. Assesso ela i ism and index-
ical con ex ualism, she said, can be dis inguished only by hei pos seman ics, bu no by
hei seman ics. E en i his we e so, I hink ha he ac ha wo heo ies p edic di e -
en u h- alues o a single u e ance is enough o make hem in e es ingly di e en , and
o make us engage in he discussion abou which o hem is wo h emb acing. I his dis-
cussion does no belong o seman ics, hen, as sugges ed in he p e ious sec ion, we should
5 A na u al wo y migh a ise when assessing he adequacy o his cha ac e iza ion o ela i ism ha
he e is no such hing as u e ance u h—u e ances a e ac s, and as such, hey can be said o be co -
ec o inco ec , bu no ue o alse (see S awson, 1950, p. 130; Ba -Hillel, 1973, p. 304). Al hough
we can alk abou u e ances’ ha ing u h- alues in i ue o hei being he ac s h ough which we ex-
p ess p oposi ions ha ha e u h- alues in a p ima y sense (see Da idson, 1990, p. 310), deepe ob-
jec ions can be aised abou alk o u e ance u h. MacFa lane, who a some poin cha ac e izes el-
a i ism in hese e ms (2003), la e ejec s his mo e on wo sepa a e g ounds (2014, pp. 48-49; see
also 2008). Fi s , he no ion o an u e ance is no a seman ic no ion (see Kaplan, 1977, p. 563), while
i would be easonable o expec he di e ence be ween ela i ism and o he p oposals o be a seman-
ic one. Howe e , as we saw in he p e ious sec ion, ela i ism is no dis inguished by i s seman ics, bu
by i s pos seman ics, as MacFa lane himsel emphasizes. Second, unde s anding an u e ance as ue i
and only i he p oposi ion exp essed by he u e ed sen ence a he con ex o he u e ance is ue e-
qui es o u e ances o ake place a a unique con ex , bu some would claim ha u e ances ake place
in all he con ex s ha ea u e possible wo lds compa ible wi h such an e en (see López de Sa, 2009).
Howe e , i eels qui e ad hoc o adap ou cha ac e iza ion o ela i ism o make oom o hese possi-
bili ies.
Edua do Pé ez-Na a o
238 Theo ia, 2021, 36/2, 231-242
mo e o he pos seman ic le el and y o es ablish which heo y explains he pos seman ics
o ou language be e .
A any a e, S ojano ic has an answe o hose who a e disposed o mo e o he pos se-
man ic le el, as I said in he p e ious sec ion—which con ex is he one in cha ge o supply-
ing he equi ed pa ame e is a ma e o p agma ics, and some con e sa ional se ings may
make he assesso ’s con ex he one o look a (2012, pp. 631-632). Bu I hink ha S ojano-
ic’s de ense o he app oach as mo e lexible han he assesso ela i is one s ems om as-
signing indexical con ex ualism mo e lexibili y han i is in ac capable o , o om assigning
assesso ela i ism less lexibili y han i is in ac capable o . I may well be ha some con-
ex s o u e ance selec he s anda d supplied by a pa icula con ex o assessmen as he
ele an one. Howe e , hey will selec i once and o e e ; hus, i will be enough o look a
he sen ence and he con ex o u e ance o ha e a u h- alue de e mined. In o he wo ds,
he s anda d supplied by he con ex o assessmen will now be pa o he con ex o u e -
ance. Assesso ela i ism, by con as , does no make u h depend on he s anda d supplied
by a pa icula con ex o assessmen , bu on he s anda d ha is ele an a he con ex o
assessmen , whiche e ha migh be. Since he e is only one con ex o u e ance and in-
ini ely many po en ial con ex s o assessmen , assesso ela i ism will s ill be much mo e
lexible han con ex ualism. Indexical con ex ualism is commi ed o he claim ha u e -
ances a e ue o alse once and o e e , ha is, o absolu ism abou u e ance u h.
I ha e p o ed ha assesso ela i ism ela i izes u e ance u h gi en ha i ela i -
izes p oposi ional u h o con ex s o assessmen . Howe e , ela i iza ion o p oposi ional
u h o con ex s o assessmen will only amoun o ela i iza ion o u e ance u h i we
unde s and con ex s o assessmen p ope ly. As we will see in he nex sec ion, he e is an
in ui i e unde s anding o he no ion ha h ea ens o b eak his link.
4. The c ux o he di e ence
In his sec ion, I dis inguish be ween he con ex o he assessmen and he assesso ’s con-
ex . Rela i ism will ela i ize u e ance u h i i ela i izes p oposi ional u h o he o -
me , bu no i i ela i izes i o he la e . Since, as we saw in he p e ious sec ion, i is he
ela i iza ion o u e ance u h ha g an s ela i ism he lexibili y i needs, we can only
sa e ela i ism om S ojano ic’s c i icism i we e use o unde s and he con ex o assess-
men as he assesso ’s con ex .
When we say ha nonindexical con ex ualism ela i izes p oposi ional u h o con-
ex s o u e ance and assesso ela i ism ela i izes i o con ex s o assessmen , i is emp -
ing o unde s and he di e ence be ween hese wo heo ies as a di e ence as o whose
s anda d plays a ole in de e mining he p oposi ion’s u h- alue. I i is he speake ’s
s anda d, we a e alking abou con ex ualism; i i is he assesso ’s, we a e alking abou el-
a i ism. I hink ha S ojano ic has his in mind when she claims ha ela i ism and con-
ex ualism a e no hing bu no a ional a ian s o each o he . Howe e , I hink his is mis-
guided, o nei he con ex ualism equi es he pa ame e s o be hose o he speake no
ela i ism equi es hem o be hose o he assesso . Fo ins ance, as Recana i poin s ou ,
he loca ion ha he con ex o u e ance supplies as pa o he ci cums ances o e alu-
a ion need no be he loca ion a which he speake is, bu “some o he place ha is be-
ing alked abou ” (2007, p. 6). In o he wo ds, i is possible o he con ex o u e ance o
h ps://doi.o g/10.1387/ heo ia.22067 239
No ma e who: Wha makes one a ela i is ?
p o ide a alue o a pa ame e in he ci cums ances o e alua ion ha is di e en om
he one ha igu es in he index o he con ex , unde s ood as he index ha includes he
speake who made he u e ance, he ime and loca ion a which i was made, he speake ’s
s anda ds, e c.6,7
Likewise, he con ex o assessmen can supply a pa ame e ha is no he assesso ’s.
To see his, conside he ollowing case. Alice and Be h a e a a es au an and hey a e
looking a he menu, ying o choose a s a e ha hey can sha e. Howe e , while Alice
came o he es au an hinking abou he delicious ood hey se e, Be h does no eally
ca e abou ood—she ea s jus o eel he s omach illed, and does no eally ha e culina y
p e e ences. The e is no hing she does no like, bu he e is no hing she especially likes ei-
he . All she wan ed o do was sha ing a meal wi h he iend Alice, no ma e wha meal
i was. I is agains his backg ound ha Alice says “Black pudding is as y” and Alice won-
de s whe he Alice has said some hing ue o alse. The con ex om which Be h does
his is he con ex o assessmen . I makes no sense, howe e , o Be h o assess he as e o
black pudding agains he pe sonal as e s anda d, since i will no ell he any hing. Thus,
he only op ion le o he is o ely on Alice’s as e s anda d, and say ha Alice has spoken
uly only i black pudding is as y ela i e o ha s anda d.8
The di e ence be ween con ex o u e ance and con ex o assessmen will amoun
o a di e ence in he s a us ha u e ance u h has in each heo y only i he con ex o
assessmen is no educible o he assesso ’s con ex . I hese wo no ions a e di e en
enough, con ex ualism will ake u e ance u h o be absolu e, while ela i ism will el-
a i ize i . In pa icula , con ex ualism will ake u e ance u h o be absolu e e en i i
6 The e is a choice as o how o unde s and he index o a con ex in ol ed he e. In a b oad enough
sense, he index o a con ex would be ha composed o he alues ha he con ex de e mines o
each pa ame e , whe he hey a e hose associa ed wi h he speake o no . Howe e , he same con ex
could de e mine, o ins ance, di e en pe sonal as e s anda ds as he ele an ones o assess di e en
asse ions e en by he same speake . Thus, i is no possible o alk abou he index o he con ex in
his sense, as he e will be mo e han one index compa ible wi h he same con ex . This is why I p e e
o alk abou he index o he con ex independen ly o he alues ha he con ex ac ually de e mines.
7 I could be a gued ha , i we allow he con ex o u e ance o supply alues o he han hose ela ed
o he speake , we dep i e ou sel es o he esou ces ha allow he con ex ualis o deem sen ences
such as “I am he e now” logically ue. I his is so, hough, i jus means ha con ex ualism is less lexi-
ble han Recana i akes i o be, o i equi es e e y pa ame e in he ci cums ances o e alua ion o be
ixed by he speake o “I am he e now” o be logically ue. Rela i ism does no need o be his lex-
ible wi h espec o indexicals—i can allow o pe sonal as e s anda ds, o ins ance, o he han he
speake ’s o ge in o he ci cums ances o e alua ion while es ic ing he alues ha can be supplied by
he con ex o u e ance so ha “I am he e now” emains logically ue.
8 This case could be a gued o be an example o an exocen ic use o “ as y” (Lase sohn, 2005, pp. 670-
674). Howe e , no e ha Be h’s e alua ion has p ac ical consequences o he , as i will help he de-
cide whe he she ea s one hing o ano he . (Compa e he uly exocen ic use o “ as y” we make
when we say ha he ca ’s ood is as y.) Be h is genuinely ying o decide whe he black pudding is
as y o no , no wonde ing whe he i is so acco ding o Alice’s as e. In doing so, hough, i is Alice’s
s anda d ha she akes in o accoun . Thus, jus like he con ex o u e ance, he con ex o assessmen
can supply alues o he pa ame e s di e en om he ones in he index o ha con ex . This means
ha , no ma e who he assesso is, he con ex o assessmen can selec i ually almos any alue o a
gi en pa ame e .