Abstract

The main aim of this paper is to evaluate the Implicature Theory for epistemic contexts, as an attempt to save the validity of the Principle of Substitution in those contexts. I defend that Recanati 's arguments against the Implicature Theory are not conclusive because they are based on inadequate examples and on unclear interpretations of Grice's writings. I then argue that the mixing up of theories of meaning and attitude ascription with the classical intuitions held by Fregeans against Russellians in these contexts does not give promising results.