David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jonathan Jenkins Ichikawa
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Natural Language Semantics 18 (4):351-383 (2010)
It is a recurring mantra that epistemic must creates a statement that is weaker than the corresponding flat-footed assertion: It must be raining vs. It’s raining. Contrary to classic discussions of the phenomenon such as by Karttunen, Kratzer, and Veltman, we argue that instead of having a weak semantics, must presupposes the presence of an indirect inference or deduction rather than of a direct observation. This is independent of the strength of the claim being made. Epistemic must is therefore quite similar to evidential markers of indirect evidence known from languages with rich evidential systems. We work towards a formalization of the evidential component, relying on a structured model of information states (analogous to some models used in the belief dynamics literature). We explain why in many contexts, one can perceive a lack of confidence on the part of the speaker who uses must
|Keywords||Modality Epistemic Evidentiality|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
Christopher Potts (2005). The Logic of Conventional Implicatures. Oxford University Press Uk.
Keith DeRose (1991). Epistemic Possibilities. Philosophical Review 100 (4):581-605.
John Lyons (1977). Semantics. Cambridge University Press.
Angelika Kratzer (1977). What 'Must' and 'Can' Must and Can Mean. Linguistics and Philosophy 1 (3):337--355.
Citations of this work BETA
Ezra Cook (2013). Epistemic Modals and Common Ground. Inquiry 56 (2-3):179-209.
Eric Swanson (2008). Modality in Language. Philosophy Compass 3 (6):1193-1207.
Josh Dever (2013). The Revenge of the Semantics‐Pragmatics Distinction. Philosophical Perspectives 27 (1):104-144.
Torfinn Thomesen Huvenes (2015). Epistemic Modals and Credal Disagreement. Philosophical Studies 172 (4):987-1011.
Malte Willer (forthcoming). An Update on Epistemic Modals. Journal of Philosophical Logic:1-15.
Similar books and articles
Piotr Koszmider (1998). On the Existence of Strong Chains in ℘(Ω1)/Fin. Journal of Symbolic Logic 63 (3):1055 - 1062.
Aaron Sloman (1986). Did Searle Attack Strong Strong AI or Weak Strong AI? In Artificial Intelligence and its Applications. Chichester
Alexander Bird (2004). Strong Necessitarianism: The Nomological Identity of Possible Worlds. Ratio 17 (3):256–276.
Jacek Malinowski (1992). Strong Versus Weak Quantum Consequence Operations. Studia Logica 51 (1):113 - 123.
Oron Shagrir (2009). Strong Global Supervenience is Valuable. Erkenntnis 71 (3):417 - 423.
Arto Laitinen (2002). Strong Evaluations and Personal Identity. In Christian Kanzian & et al (eds.), Persons: An Interdisciplinary Approach. ALWS Society 127-9.
Mark Moyer (1999). Strengths and Weaknesses of Weak and Strong Supervenience. Philosophical Explorations.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads54 ( #88,911 of 1,928,407 )
Recent downloads (6 months)9 ( #102,993 of 1,928,407 )
How can I increase my downloads?