What 'must' adds
There is a difference between the conditions in which one can felicitously use a ‘must’-claim like (1-a) and those in which one can use the corresponding claim without the ‘must’, as in (1-b): <br/><br/> (1) a. It must be raining out.<br/> b. It is raining out.<br/><br/>...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Journal article |
| Published: |
Springer Netherlands
2019
|
| _version_ | 1797073640236253184 |
|---|---|
| author | Mandelkern, M |
| author_facet | Mandelkern, M |
| author_sort | Mandelkern, M |
| collection | OXFORD |
| description | There is a difference between the conditions in which one can felicitously use a ‘must’-claim like (1-a) and those in which one can use the corresponding claim without the ‘must’, as in (1-b): <br/><br/> (1) a. It must be raining out.<br/> b. It is raining out.<br/><br/> It is difficult to pin down just what this difference amounts to. And it is difficult to account for this difference, since assertions of ┌ Must p ┐ and assertions of p alone seem to have the same basic goal: namely, communicating that p is true. In this paper I give a new account of the conversational role of ‘must’. I begin by arguing that a ‘must’-claim is felicitous only if there is a shared argument for the proposition it embeds. 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 propose a pragmatic derivation of Support as a manner implicature. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-06T23:24:56Z |
| format | Journal article |
| id | oxford-uuid:6a086d43-705d-4b56-b13b-1a3d5e4c5a93 |
| institution | University of Oxford |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-06T23:24:56Z |
| publishDate | 2019 |
| publisher | Springer Netherlands |
| record_format | dspace |
| spelling | oxford-uuid:6a086d43-705d-4b56-b13b-1a3d5e4c5a932022-03-26T18:54:55ZWhat 'must' addsJournal articlehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_dcae04bcuuid:6a086d43-705d-4b56-b13b-1a3d5e4c5a93Symplectic Elements at OxfordSpringer Netherlands2019Mandelkern, MThere is a difference between the conditions in which one can felicitously use a ‘must’-claim like (1-a) and those in which one can use the corresponding claim without the ‘must’, as in (1-b): <br/><br/> (1) a. It must be raining out.<br/> b. It is raining out.<br/><br/> It is difficult to pin down just what this difference amounts to. And it is difficult to account for this difference, since assertions of ┌ Must p ┐ and assertions of p alone seem to have the same basic goal: namely, communicating that p is true. In this paper I give a new account of the conversational role of ‘must’. I begin by arguing that a ‘must’-claim is felicitous only if there is a shared argument for the proposition it embeds. 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 propose a pragmatic derivation of Support as a manner implicature. |
| spellingShingle | Mandelkern, M What 'must' adds |
| title | What 'must' adds |
| title_full | What 'must' adds |
| title_fullStr | What 'must' adds |
| title_full_unstemmed | What 'must' adds |
| title_short | What 'must' adds |
| title_sort | what must adds |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT mandelkernm whatmustadds |