A solution to Karttunen's Problem

In Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 21 (2017)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
There is a difference between the conditions in which one can felicitously assert a ‘must’-claim versus those in which one can use the corresponding non-modal claim. But it is difficult to pin down just what this difference amounts to. And it is even harder to account for this difference, since assertions of 'Must ϕ' and assertions of ϕ alone seem to have the same basic goal: namely, coming to agreement that [[ϕ]] is true. In this paper I take on this puzzle, known as Karttunen’s Problem. I begin by arguing that a ‘must’-claim is felicitous only if there is a shared argument for its prejacent. I then argue that this generalization, which I call Support, can explain the more familiar generalization that ‘must’-claims are felicitous only if the speaker’s evidence for them is in some sense indirect. Finally, I sketch a pragmatic derivation of Support.
PhilPapers/Archive ID
Revision history
Archival date: 2018-07-22
View upload history
References found in this work BETA
Common Ground.Stalnaker, Robert
Context.Stalnaker, Robert

View all 19 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA
Modality and Expressibility.Mandelkern, Matthew
What ‘Must’ Adds.Mandelkern, Matthew
Still Going Strong.von Fintel, Kai & Gillies, Anthony S.

View all 6 citations / Add more citations

Added to PP index

Total views
62 ( #37,557 of 47,166 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
18 ( #35,488 of 47,166 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks to external links.