Skip to main content

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

  • Chapter
Time and Modality

Part of the book series: Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory ((SNLT,volume 75))

Abstract

In this article, we draw attention to the fact that what English expresses by the use of the weak necessity modal ought, many other languages express by combining a strong necessity modal with the morphology that appears in the consequent of a counterfactual conditional. On the hypothesis that there should be a compositional form-to-meaning mapping, we explore the semantics of weak necessity modals and propose how to derive this semantics from the combination of a strong necessity modal and counterfactual marking. Specifically, building on the semantics for weak necessity modals proposed by Sloman, we propose that weak necessity modals are the result of the promotion of a secondary ordering source of a strong necessity modal. This meta-linguistic operation is signaled or effected by counterfactual marking. The fact that it is a strong necessity modal that is counterfactually marked crosslinguistically, shows that even with weak necessity modals the quantificational force is universal.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Bybee, J. L., Perkins, R. D., and Pagliuca, W. (1994). The Evolution of Grammar: Tense, Aspect, and Modality in the Languages of the World. Chicago University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Copley, B. (2006). What should Should mean? Ms of a paper given at the Workshop “Language under Uncertainty: Modals, Evidentials, and Conditionals”, Kyoto University, January 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  • Finlay, S. (2006). (In Order That. . . ) Ought. ms, USC.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Fintel, K. (1999). The presupposition of subjunctive conditionals. In Sauerland, U. and Percus, O., editors, The Interpretive Tract, number 25 in MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, pages 29-44. MITWPL, Cambridge, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Fintel, K. and Gillies, A. S. (2007). An opinionated guide to epistemic modality. ms, MIT and University of Michigan, to appear in Tamar Gendler Szab ó and John Hawthorne (eds.) Oxford Studies in Epistemology, Vol.2, Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Fintel, K. and Iatridou, S. (2005). What to do if you want to go to Harlem: Anankastic conditionals and related matters. ms, MIT.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frank, A. (1996). Context Dependence in Modal Constructions. Ph.D. thesis, Universit ät Stuttgart.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horn, L. R. (1972). On the Semantic Properties of the Logical Operators in English. Ph.D. thesis, UCLA, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Iatridou, S. (2000). The grammatical ingredients of counterfactuality. Linguistic Inquiry, 31(2):231-270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, A. J. and P örn, I. (1986). Ought and Must. Synthese, 66(1):89-93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kratzer, A. (1981). The notional category of modality. In Eikmeyer, H. J. and Rieser, H., editors, Words, Worlds, and Contexts. New Approaches in Word Semantics, pages 38-74, Berlin. de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kratzer, A. (1991). Modality. In von Stechow, A. and Wunderlich, D., editors, Semantics: An International Handbook of Contemporary Research, pages 639-650, Berlin. de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • McNamara, P. (1996). Must I do what I ought? (or will the least I can do do?). In Brown, M. A. and Carmo, J., editors, Deontic Logic, Agency and Normative Systems - DEON’96: Third International Workshop on Deontic Logic in Computer Science, Sesimbra, Portugal, 11-13 January 1996, Workshops in Computing, pages 154-173. Springer, Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  • McNamara, P. (2006). Deontic logic. In Zalta, E. N., editor, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sloman, A. (1970). Ought and Better. Mind, 79(315):385-394.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Stechow, A., Krasikova, S., and Penka, D. (2006). Anankastic conditionals again. In Solstad, T., Grønn, A., and Haug, D., editors, A Festschrift for Kjell Johan Sæbø - In Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Celebration of his 50th Birthday, pages 151-171. Oslo.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wertheimer, R. (1972). The Significance of Sense: Meaning, Modality, and Morality. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2008 Springer Science+Business Media B.V

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

von Fintel, K., Iatridou, S. (2008). How to Say Ought in Foreign: The Composition of Weak Necessity Modals. In: Guéron, J., Lecarme, J. (eds) Time and Modality. Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, vol 75. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8354-9_6

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics