How to Say Ought in Foreign: The Composition of Weak Necessity Modals

Fintel, Kai von; Iatridou, Sabine

doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-8354-9_6

Cited by 219 publications

(119 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

107

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In analyzing the asymmetric entailment from strong necessity modals like must to weak necessity modals like should, von Fintel & Iatridou (2008) posit that there are two ranked ordering sources, which I will call g c 1 and g c 2 (with g c 1 outranking g c 2 ). 4 On this approach, must only utilizes the primary ordering source, universally quantifying over the worlds in BEST( g c 1 (w) , F c w ).…”

Section: The Theory In Broad Strokesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Finally, let us look at the entailments discussed in the introduction, where we saw that must p asymmetrically entails it is important that p, which in turn asymmetrically entails should p. In analyzing these entailments, I will adopt von Fintel & Iatridou's (2008) previously discussed theory of weak versus strong necessity modals. Recall that von Fintel & Iatridou (2008) posit the existence of two ranked ordering sources, g c 1 and g c 2 , with must quantifying over BEST( g c 1 (w) , F c w ), the set of ideal worlds with respect to g c 1 (w) .…”

Section: Positive Form and Entailments With Auxiliariesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Recall that von Fintel & Iatridou (2008) posit the existence of two ranked ordering sources, g c 1 and g c 2 , with must quantifying over BEST( g c 1 (w) , F c w ), the set of ideal worlds with respect to g c 1 (w) . In the case of should, these ideal worlds are then passed down to g c 2 (w) , resulting in quantification over BEST( g c 2 (w) , BEST( g c 1 (w) , F c w )).…”

Section: Positive Form and Entailments With Auxiliariesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

A conservative theory of gradable modality

Pasternak

2016

SALT

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the tradition of modal semantics stemming from the work of Kratzer (1981Kratzer ( , 1991, several attempts have been made to analyze adjectives like important, which are both modal and gradable. I show that existing theories of such gradable modal adjectives (GMAs) in this framework do not allow for comparisons across distinct sets or prioritizations of premises, as the basis for comparison in these theories is too closely wedded to the particular choice and ranking of priorities. To fix this, I include modal degrees in the ontology, with sets of premises being relativized to those degrees. What results is a theory that allows comparison across sets of priorities, while still retaining the premise-based world ordering and quantification that lies at the heart of Kratzer's approach. This theory is then extended to account for existentially-quantifying GMAs like permissible, as well as entailment relations between modal auxiliaries and GMAs.

show abstract

Section: The Theory In Broad Strokesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Positive Form and Entailments With Auxiliariesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Positive Form and Entailments With Auxiliariesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A conservative theory of gradable modality

Pasternak

2016

SALT

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Non-employees really ought to wash their hands, too. [9] It is not 'ought,' but rather 'must' that indicates an obligation or duty, or what we are required to do. In (1), while it is clear that employees are required to wash their hands, 'ought' seems to indicate a weaker claim on the non-employee-something more like a recommendation or exhortation.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Exactly how this is spelled out obviously depends both on how sameness of flavor is to be understood and on the semantics of the two locutions. Perhaps the best-known attempt to represent the differences in strength between 'ought' and 'must' comes from Kai von Fintel and Sabine Iatridou [9,10]. Following Angelica Kratzer [7,8], they take must(φ) to mean (simplifying somewhat) φ holds in all the highest ranking accessible possible worlds.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

‘Must’, ‘Ought’ and the Structure of Standards

Björnsson

Shanklin

2014

Deontic Logic and Normative Systems

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. This paper concerns the semantic difference between strong and weak necessity modals. First we identify a number of explananda: their wellknown intuitive difference in strength between 'must' and 'ought' as well as differences in connections to probabilistic considerations and acts of requiring and recommending. Here we argue that important extant analyses of the semantic differences, though tailored to account for some of these aspects, fail to account for all. We proceed to suggest that the difference between 'ought' and 'must' lies in how they relate to scalar and binary standards. Briefly put, must(φ) says that among the relevant alternatives, φ is selected by the relevant binary standard, whereas ought(φ) says that among the relevant alternatives, φ is selected by the relevant scale. Given independently plausible assumptions about how standards are provided by context, this explains the relevant differences discussed.

show abstract

Modal–Temporal Interactions

Fălăuş

Laça²

2020

The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Semantics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This chapter concentrates on the interaction between modal verbs and tense-aspect operators. It explores the question of the link between types of modality and temporal configurations by adopting a precise framework for the analysis of temporal configurations in modal environments and by tracing the development of the hypothesis of a structural difference between epistemic and non-epistemic modals.

show abstract

How to Say Ought in Foreign: The Composition of Weak Necessity Modals

Cited by 219 publications

References 5 publications

A conservative theory of gradable modality

A conservative theory of gradable modality

‘Must’, ‘Ought’ and the Structure of Standards

Modal–Temporal Interactions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About