Probabilistic approach to epistemic modals in the framework of dynamic semantics

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18778/1689-4286.30.03

Keywords:

dynamic semantics, probabilistic semantics, epistemic modals

Abstract

In dynamic semantics meaning of a statement is not equated with its truth conditions but with its context change potential. It has also been claimed that dynamic framework can automatically account for certain paradoxes that involve epistemic modals, such as the following one: it seems odd and incoherent to claim: (1) “It is raining and it might not rain”, whereas claiming (2) “It might not rain and it is raining” does not seem equally odd (Yalcin, 2007). Nevertheless, it seems that it cannot capture the fact that statement (2) seems odd as well, even though not as odd as the statement (1) (Gauker, 2007). I will argue that certain probabilistic extensions to the dynamic model can account for this subtlety of our linguistic intuitions and represent if not an improved than at least an alternative framework for capturing the way contexts are updated and beliefs revised with uncertain information.

References

Baltag Alexandru, Smets Sonja, 2008, Probabilistic Dynamic Belief Revision, “Synthese” 165 (2), pp. 179–202.
View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-008-9369-8

Dowty, David, Wall, Robert, and Peters, Stanley, 1981, Introduction to Montague Semantics, Dordrecht: Reidel.
View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-9065-4

Dorr, Cian, Hawthorne John, 2012, Embedding Epistemic Modals, manuscript.
View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/mind/fzt091

Egan, Andy, 2007, Epistemic modals, relativism and assertion, “Philosophical Studies”, 133(1), pp.1–22.
View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-006-9003-x

Frege, Gottlob, 2001, On Sense and Reference, [in:] David Sosa (ed.), Analytic Philosophy: an Anthology, Hoboken: Blackwell Publishing, pp. 7–19.
View in Google Scholar

Gauker, Christopher, Comments on dynamic semantics. APA Central Division Chicago.
View in Google Scholar

Groenendijk, Jeroen, Stokhof, Martin, 1991, Dynamic predicate logic, “Linguistics and Philosophy” 14 (1), pp. 39–100.
View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00628304

Groenendijk, Jeroen, Stokhof, Martin, 1996, Changing the context: dynamic semantics and discourse, [in:] Edit Doron & Shuly Wintner (eds), IATL 3: Proceedings of the 11th Annual Conference and of the Workshop on Discourse, Jerusalem: Israel Association for Theoretical Linguistics, pp. 104–128.
View in Google Scholar

Geach, Peter, 1962, Reference and Generality, New York: Cornell University Press.
View in Google Scholar

Goodman, Noah, Lassiter, Daniel, 2014. Probabilistic semantics and pragmatics: Uncertainty in language and thought, [in:] Shalom Lappin (ed), Handbook of Contemporary Semantics, Hoboken: Blackwell Publishing, pp: 1–46.
View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118882139.ch21

Goodman Noah, Lassiter Daniel, Communicating with Epistemic Modals in Stochastic λ-Calculus, manuscript.
View in Google Scholar

Holliday, Wesley Halcrow, Icard, Thomas Frederick III, 2013, Measure semantics and qualitative semantics for epistemic modals, “Semantics and Linguistic Theory” 23, pp. 514–534.
View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v23i0.2670

Janssen, Theo M. V., “Montague Semantics”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2012 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2012/entries/montague-semantics/
View in Google Scholar

Kratzer, Angelika, 2012, Modals and Conditionals, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199234684.003.0004

Sorensen, Roy, 2009, Meta-agnosticism: Higher Order Epistemic Possibility, “Mind” 118 (471), pp: 777–784.
View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/mind/fzp105

Van Eijck, Jan, Lappin Shalom, 2014, Probabilistic Semantics for Natural Language, unpublished manuscript
View in Google Scholar

Veltman, Frank, 1996, Defaults in update semantics, “Journal of Philosophical Logic” 25 (3), pp. 221–261.
View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00248150

Willer, Martha, 2013, Dynamics of Epistemic Modality, “Philosophical Review” 122 (1), pp.45–92.
View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1215/00318108-1728714

Yalcin, Seth, 2007, Epistemic Modals, “Mind” 116 (464), pp. 983–1026.
View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/mind/fzm983

Yalcin, Seth, 2010, Probability Operators, “Philosophy Compass”, 5 (11), pp. 916–937.
View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-9991.2010.00360.x

Yalcin, Seth, 2012. Context Probabilism, [in:] Maria Aloni (ed.), 18th Amsterdam Colloquium, Berlin Heidelberg: Springer, pp. 12–21.
View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-31482-7_2

Downloads

Published

2015-09-30

How to Cite

Kostic, M. (2015). Probabilistic approach to epistemic modals in the framework of dynamic semantics. Hybris, 30(3), 16–32. https://doi.org/10.18778/1689-4286.30.03