Off-campus UMass Amherst users: To download campus access dissertations, please use the following link to log into our proxy server with your UMass Amherst user name and password.

Non-UMass Amherst users: Please talk to your librarian about requesting this dissertation through interlibrary loan.

Dissertations that have an embargo placed on them will not be available to anyone until the embargo expires.

Author ORCID Identifier



Open Access Dissertation

Document Type


Degree Name

Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)

Degree Program


Year Degree Awarded


Month Degree Awarded


First Advisor

Phillip Bricker

Second Advisor

Hilary Kornblith

Third Advisor

Eileen O'Neill

Subject Categories

Philosophy | Philosophy of Language


In my dissertation, I explore the role of taste disagreements in the debate about the semantics of predicates of personal taste. Linguistic data derived from examples of gustatory disagreement often plays a major role in deciding the correct semantics of taste. I claim that, contrary to the trend in the recent literature, taste disagreements should not play any part in this debate. I argue that the data can be accommodated independently of the semantics by a theory of the purpose of “subjective” disagreements, such as taste disagreements. In support of this claim, I develop such a theory—one that includes an appeal to distinctively gustatory norms. I demonstrate how this theory can be applied equally well to the two major competing semantic theories—relativism and contextualism—to explain taste disagreements. If I am correct, this discovery represents a substantial contribution to the dialectic because it offers philosophers and linguists decisive motivation to discontinue their reliance on disagreement data in the debate about the semantics of taste.