Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-18T18:18:28.577Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

MODALITY AND EXPRESSIBILITY

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 January 2019

MATTHEW MANDELKERN
MATTHEW MANDELKERN*
Affiliation:
All Souls College, Oxford
*
*ALL SOULS COLLEGE OXFORD, OX1 4AL, UK E-mail: matthew.mandelkern@all-souls.ox.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

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

03B65relative expressibilitysemantic theoriesepistemic modalsattitude predicates
Type
Research Article
Information
The Review of Symbolic Logic , Volume 12 , Issue 4 , December 2019 , pp. 768 - 805
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Symbolic Logic 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Aloni, M. (2000). Conceptual covers in dynamic semantics. In Cavedon, L., Blackburn, P., Braisby, N., and Shimojima, A., editors. Logic, Language and Computation, Vol. III. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Aloni, M. (2016). FC disjunction in state-based semantics. Slides for Logical Aspects of Computational Linguistics (LACL). Nancy, France.Google Scholar
Aloni, M. D. (2001). Quantification Under Conceptual Covers. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Beaver, D. (1994). When variables don’t vary enough. In Harvey, M. and Santelmann, L., editors. Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT), Vol. 4. Washington, DC: Linguistic Society of America, pp. 35–60.Google Scholar
Beaver, D. (2001). Presupposition and Assertion in Dynamic Semantics. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Beaver, D. I (1992). The kinematics of presupposition. ITLI Prepublication Series for Logic, Semantics and Philosophy of Language. University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Beddor, B. & Goldstein, S. (2018). Believing epistemic contradictions. Review of Symbolic Logic, 11 (1), 87–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bledin, J. & Lando, T. (2018). Closure and epistemic modals. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 97(1), 3–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cresswell, M. (1990). Entities and Indices. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Degen, J., Kao, J. T., Scontras, G., & Goodman, N. D. (2015). A cost- and information-based account of epistemic must. Poster at 28th Annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing.Google Scholar
Dorr, C. & Hawthorne, J. (2013). Embedding epistemic modals. Mind, 122(488), 867–913.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dowell, J. (2011). A flexibly contextualist account of epistemic modals. Philosophers’ Imprint, 11(14), 1–25.Google Scholar
Egan, A., Hawthorne, J., & Weatherson, B. (2005). Epistemic modals in context. In Preyer, G. and Peter, G., editors. Contextualism in Philosophy: Knowledge, Meaning and Truth. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 131–169.Google Scholar
von Fintel, K. (1997). Bare plurals, bare conditionals, and Only. Journal of Semantics, 14, 1–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
von Fintel, K. & Gillies, A. (2010). Must…stay…strong! Natural Language Semantics, 18(4), 351–383.Google Scholar
French, R. (2017). Notational variance and its variants. Topoi, doi:10.1007/s11245-017-9478-4.Google Scholar
Gerbrandy, J. (1998). Identity in epistemic semantics. Third Conference on Information-Theoretic Approaches to Logic, Language and Computation.Google Scholar
Giannakidou, A. & Mari, A. (2016). Epistemic future and epistemic MUST: Nonveridicality, evidence, and partial knowledge. In Blaszack, J., Giannikidou, A., Klimek-Jankowska, D., and Mygdalski, K., editors. Mood, Aspect and Modality: What is a Linguistic Category? Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 75–117.Google Scholar
Gillies, A. S. (2018). Updating data semantics. Mind, doi:10.1093/mind/fzy008.Google Scholar
Groenendijk, J. & Stokhof, M. (1991). Dynamic predicate logic. Linguistics and Philosophy, 14(1), 39–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Groenendijk, J., Stokhof, M., & Veltman, F. (1996). Coreference and modality. In Lappin, S., editor. Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 179–216.Google Scholar
Hacquard, V. (2006). Aspects of Modality. Ph.D. Thesis, MIT.Google Scholar
Hacquard, V. (2010). On the event relativity of modal auxiliaries. Natural Language Semantics, 18, 79–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawke, P. & Steinert-Threlkeld, S. (2016). Informational dynamics of epistemic possibility modals. Synthese, 195, 4309–4342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawthorne, J., Rothschild, D., & Spectre, L. (2016). Belief is weak. Philosophical Studies, 173(5), 1393–1404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heim, I. (1982). The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Heim, I. (1983). On the projection problem for presuppositions. In Barlow, M., Flickinger, D. P., and Wiegand, N., editors. The West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL), Vol. 2. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, pp. 114–125.Google Scholar
Heim, I. (1992). Presupposition projection and the semantics of attitude verbs. Journal of Semantics, 9(3), 183–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hintikka, J. (1962). Knowledge and Belief: An Introduction to the Logic of Two Notions. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Holliday, W. H. & Icard, T. F. III (2017). Indicative conditionals and dynamic epistemic logic. In Lang, J., editor. Theoretical Aspects of Rationality and Knowledge (TARK), Vol. 16. EPTCS, pp. 337–351.Google Scholar
Ippolito, M. (2017). Constraints on the embeddability of epistemic modals. In Truswell, R., Cummins, C., Heycock, C., Rabern, B., and Rohde, H., editors. Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung, Vol. 21, pp. 605–622.Google Scholar
Kamp, H. (1970). Formal properties of ‘now’. Theoria, 37, 227–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karttunen, L. (1972). Possible and must. In Kimball, J., editor. Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 1. New York: Academic Press, pp. 1–20.Google Scholar
Khoo, J. (2015). Modal disagreements. Inquiry, 58(5), 511–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kratzer, A. (1977). What ‘must’ and ‘can’ must and can mean. Linguistics and Philosophy, 1(3), 337–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kratzer, A. (1981). The notional category of modality. In Eikmeyer, H. and Rieser, H., editors. Words, Worlds, and Contexts: New Approaches in Word Semantics. Berlin: de Gruyter, pp. 38–74.Google Scholar
Kratzer, A. (1991). Modality. In von Stechow, A. and Wunderlich, D., editors. Semantics: An International Handbook of Contemporary Research. Berlin: de Gruyter, pp. 639–650.Google Scholar
Kratzer, A. (2012). Modals and Conditionals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kripke, S. (1963). Semantical considerations on modal logic. Acta Philosophica Fennica, 16, 83–94.Google Scholar
Lassiter, D. (2016). Must, knowledge, and (in)directness. Natural Language Semantics, 24, 117–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, D. (1980). Index, context, and content. In Kanger, S. and Ohman, S., editors. Philosophy and Grammar. Dordrecht: D. Reidel, pp. 79–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacFarlane, J. (2011). Epistemic modals are assessment sensitive. In Egan, A. and Weatherson, B., editors. Epistemic Modality. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 144–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacFarlane, J. (2014). Assessment Sensitivity: Relative Truth and Its Applications. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mandelkern, M. (2017a). Coordination in Conversation. Ph.D. Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Mandelkern, M. (2017b). A solution to Karttunen’s problem. In Truswell, R., Cummins, C., Heycock, C., Rabern, B., and Rohde, H., editors. Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 21, pp. 827–844.Google Scholar
Mandelkern, M. (2018a). How to do things with modals. Mind & Language, to appear.Google Scholar
Mandelkern, M. (2018b). What ‘must’ adds. Linguistics and Philosophy, doi:10.1007/s10988-018-9246-y.Google Scholar
Mandelkern, M. (2019). Bounded modality. The Philosophical Review, 181(1), 1–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matthewson, L. (2015). Evidential restrictions on epistemic modals. In Alonso-Ovalle, L. and Menendez-Benito, P., editors. Epistemic Indefinites. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 141–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moss, S. (2015). On the semantics and pragmatics of epistemic vocabulary. Semantics and Pragmatics, 8(5), 1–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mossakowski, T., Diaconescu, R., & Tarlecki, A. (2009). What is a logic translation? Logica Universalis, 3(1), 95–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ninan, D. (2010). Semantics and the objects of assertion. Linguistics and Philosophy, 33(5), 355–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ninan, D. (2016). Relational semantics and domain semantics for epistemic modals. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 47(1), 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ninan, D. (2018). Quantification and epistemic modality. The Philosophical Review, 127(2), 433–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peters, S. & Westerståhl, D. (2008). Quantifiers in Language and Logic. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pinheiro Fernandes, D. (2017). Translations: Generalizing relative expressiveness between logics. Manuscript, University of Salamanca. Available at: https://arxiv.org/abs/1706.08481.Google Scholar
Rabern, B. (2012). Against the identification of assertoric content with compositional value. Synthese, 189(1), 75–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rabern, B. (2013). Monsters in Kaplan’s logic of demonstratives. Philosophical Studies, 164, 393–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rothschild, D. (2011). Expressing credences. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 112, pp. 99–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rothschild, D. (2017). Veltman-Yalcin. Available at: http://danielrothschild.com/dyncon/vy/.Google Scholar
Rothschild, D. & Klinedinst, N. (2015). Quantified epistemic modality. Handout for talk at Birmingham.Google Scholar
Rothschild, D. & Yalcin, S. (2015). On the dynamics of conversation. Noûs, 51(1), 24–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rothschild, D. & Yalcin, S. (2016). Three notions of dynamicness in language. Linguistics and Philosophy, 39(4), 333–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schultz, M. (2010). Epistemic modals and informational consequence. Synthese, 174(3), 385–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sherman, B. (2018). Open questions and epistemic necessity. The Philosophical Quarterly, 68, 819–840.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stalnaker, R. (1984). Inquiry. Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
Steinert-Threlkeld, S. (2017). Communication and Computation: New Questions About Compositionality. Ph.D. Thesis, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Stephenson, T. (2007). Judge dependence, epistemic modals, and predicates of personal taste. Linguistics and Philosophy, 30(4), 487–525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swanson, E. (2015). The application of constraint semantics to the language of subjective uncertainty. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 45(121), 121–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Veltman, F. (1985). Logics for Conditionals. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Veltman, F. (1996). Defaults in update semantics. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 25(3), 221–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Willer, M. (2013). Dynamics of epistemic modality. Philosophical Review, 122(1), 45–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yalcin, S. (2007). Epistemic modals. Mind, 116(464), 983–1026.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yalcin, S. (2011). Nonfactualism about epistemic modality. In Egan, A. and Weatherson, B., editors. Epistemic Modality. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 295–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yalcin, S. (2012). Context probabilism. In Aloni, M., Kimmelman, V., Roelofsen, F., Sassoon, G. W., Schulz, K., and Westera, M., editors. The 18th Amsterdam Colloquium. Berlin: Springer, pp. 12–21.Google Scholar
Yalcin, S. (2015). Epistemic modality de re. Ergo, 2(19), 475–527.Google Scholar