Review of Symbolic Logic 12 (4):768-805 (2019)

Matthew Mandelkern
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (PhD)
When embedding data are used to argue against semantic theory A and in favor of semantic theory B, it is important to ask whether A could make sense of those data. It is possible to ask that question on a case-by-case basis. But suppose we could show that A can make sense of all the embedding data which B can possibly make sense of. This would, on the one hand, undermine arguments in favor of B over A on the basis of embedding data. And, provided that the converse does not hold—that is, that A can make sense of strictly more embedding data than B can—it would also show that there is a precise sense in which B is more constrained than A, yielding a pro tanto simplicity-based consideration in favor of B. In this paper I develop tools which allow us to make comparisons of this kind, which I call comparisons of potential expressive power. I motivate the development of these tools by way of exploration of the recent debate about epistemic modals. Prominent theories which have been developed in response to embedding data turn out to be strictly less expressive than the standard relational theory, a fact which necessitates a reorientation in how to think about the choice between these theories.
Keywords epistemic modals  expressibility  semantic theory choice
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1017/s1755020318000394
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

 PhilArchive page | Other versions
External links

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

Epistemic Modals.Seth Yalcin - 2007 - Mind 116 (464):983-1026.
Semantical Considerations on Modal Logic.Saul A. Kripke - 1963 - Acta Philosophica Fennica 16:83-94.
Inquiry.Robert Stalnaker - 1984 - Cambridge University Press.

View all 59 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

How to Do Things with Modals.Matthew Mandelkern - 2020 - Mind and Language 35 (1):115-138.
What ‘Must’ Adds.Matthew Mandelkern - 2019 - Linguistics and Philosophy 42 (3):225-266.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Bounded Modality.Matthew Mandelkern - 2019 - Philosophical Review 128 (1):1-61.
Deontic Modals and Probability: One Theory to Rule Them All?Fabrizio Cariani - forthcoming - In Nate Charlow & Matthew Chrisman (eds.), Deontic Modality. Oxford University Press.
New Horizons for a Theory of Epistemic Modals.Justin Khoo & Jonathan Phillips - 2019 - Australasian Journal of Philosophy 97 (2):309-324.
DO IGNORANT ASSESSORS CASES POSE A CHALLENGE TO RELATIVISM ABOUT EPISTEMIC MODALS?Heidi Furey - forthcoming - Linguistic and Philosophical Investigations 16.
Expressivism Concerning Epistemic Modals.Benjamin Schnieder - 2010 - Philosophical Quarterly 60 (240):601-615.
Fallibilism and the Flexibility of Epistemic Modals.Charity Anderson - 2014 - Philosophical Studies 167 (3):597-606.
Epistemic Modals and Credal Disagreement.Torfinn Thomesen Huvenes - 2015 - Philosophical Studies 172 (4):987-1011.
'According To' Phrases and Epistemic Modals.Brett Sherman - 2018 - Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 36 (2):627-636.
Epistemic Modals in Context.Andy Egan, John Hawthorne & Brian Weatherson - 2005 - In Gerhard Preyer & Georg Peter (eds.), Contextualism in Philosophy. Oxford University Press. pp. 131-170.
Epistemic Modality De Re.Seth Yalcin - 2015 - Ergo: An Open Access Journal of Philosophy 2:475-527.


Added to PP index

Total views
263 ( #33,074 of 2,421,638 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
70 ( #10,368 of 2,421,638 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes