國立高雄大學圖資館 |

Language: English

Back

Modals and Their Arguments.

Northwestern University.

Modals and Their Arguments.

Record Type:	Electronic resources : Monograph/item
Title/Author:	Modals and Their Arguments.
Author:	Skibra, Daniel.
Published:	Ann Arbor : ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, 2020
Description:	223 p.
Notes:	Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 82-06, Section: A.
Notes:	Advisor: Cariani, Fabrizio;Glanzberg, Michael.
Contained By:	Dissertations Abstracts International82-06A.
Subject:	Philosophy.
Online resource:	http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=28093739
ISBN:	9798698574828

Modals and Their Arguments.
Skibra, Daniel.

Modals and Their Arguments. - Ann Arbor : ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, 2020 - 223 p.

Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 82-06, Section: A.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--Northwestern University, 2020.

This item must not be sold to any third party vendors.

The philosophical literature on modals is dominated by the following paradigm: modals are modeled as quantifiers over sets of possible worlds. The diversity of modal “flavors” (e.g., epistemic, deontic, teleological interpretations of modals) is accommodated within the paradigm by logical mechanisms that allow extralinguistic factors to restrict the quantificational domain of the modal. This way of modeling flavor diversity usually comes pre-packaged with the dominant paradigm. In the first part of the dissertation, I make a case for (1) rejecting the pre-packed assumption, and (2) adopting an alternative conception of the relation between extralinguistic context, the grammar of modals, and modal flavor.The case against the assumption is easy to motivate with the contrast between (1) and (2).(1) John must be at the store. (2) John must go to the store.(1) can have an epistemic or deontic interpretation, as the context might allow. I show that the conditions under which (2) can have an epistemic reading are highly constrained by grammatical factors – not simply by contextual ones. These constraints call for an explanation. However, as I show, the standard ways of implementing the paradigm fails to predict the constraints on modal interpretation. Drawing on the work of Hacquard (2006; 2010), I provide a way to extend the paradigm that both predicts these constraints and provides an adequate explanation of them. In the second part of the dissertation, I show that adopting my proposed framework pays unexpected explanatory dividends, for it provides the tools to explain some independent phenomena, among them i) the temporal interpretation of root modals, ii) so-called “hindsight” interpretation of modals, and even iii) the linguistic expression of the distinction between deliberative and evaluative "ought" familiar to practical philosophers.

ISBN: 9798698574828Subjects--Topical Terms:

176573
Philosophy.
Subjects--Index Terms:

Aspect

Modals and Their Arguments.
LDR:03002nmm a2200373 4500 001 594626
005 20210521101711.5
008 210917s2020 ||||||||||||||||| ||eng d
020 $a 9798698574828
035 $a (MiAaPQ)AAI28093739
035 $a AAI28093739
040 $a MiAaPQ $c MiAaPQ
100 1 $a Skibra, Daniel. $3 886672
245 1 0 $a Modals and Their Arguments.
260 1 $a Ann Arbor : $b ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, $c 2020
300 $a 223 p.
500 $a Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 82-06, Section: A.
500 $a Advisor: Cariani, Fabrizio;Glanzberg, Michael.
502 $a Thesis (Ph.D.)--Northwestern University, 2020.
506 $a This item must not be sold to any third party vendors.
520 $a The philosophical literature on modals is dominated by the following paradigm: modals are modeled as quantifiers over sets of possible worlds. The diversity of modal “flavors” (e.g., epistemic, deontic, teleological interpretations of modals) is accommodated within the paradigm by logical mechanisms that allow extralinguistic factors to restrict the quantificational domain of the modal. This way of modeling flavor diversity usually comes pre-packaged with the dominant paradigm. In the first part of the dissertation, I make a case for (1) rejecting the pre-packed assumption, and (2) adopting an alternative conception of the relation between extralinguistic context, the grammar of modals, and modal flavor.The case against the assumption is easy to motivate with the contrast between (1) and (2).(1) John must be at the store. (2) John must go to the store.(1) can have an epistemic or deontic interpretation, as the context might allow. I show that the conditions under which (2) can have an epistemic reading are highly constrained by grammatical factors – not simply by contextual ones. These constraints call for an explanation. However, as I show, the standard ways of implementing the paradigm fails to predict the constraints on modal interpretation. Drawing on the work of Hacquard (2006; 2010), I provide a way to extend the paradigm that both predicts these constraints and provides an adequate explanation of them. In the second part of the dissertation, I show that adopting my proposed framework pays unexpected explanatory dividends, for it provides the tools to explain some independent phenomena, among them i) the temporal interpretation of root modals, ii) so-called “hindsight” interpretation of modals, and even iii) the linguistic expression of the distinction between deliberative and evaluative "ought" familiar to practical philosophers.
590 $a School code: 0163.
650 4 $a Philosophy. $3 176573
650 4 $a Linguistics. $3 176897
653 $a Aspect
653 $a Context-sensitity
653 $a Deontic modality
653 $a Epistemic modality
653 $a Modals
653 $a Semantics
690 $a 0422
690 $a 0290
710 2 $a Northwestern University. $b Philosophy. $3 886673
773 0 $t Dissertations Abstracts International $g 82-06A.
790 $a 0163
791 $a Ph.D.
792 $a 2020
793 $a English
856 4 0 $u http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=28093739