Search

In our paper, we put forward a formal semantic theory of the interaction between deontic and circumstantial modal verbs. We refer to our model as MIC (or “Must Implies Can”). To cut a long story short, according to MIC, sentences of the form “S must φ, but (s)he cannot” express a logical contradiction. We shall refer to such complex sentences as M-sentences. The general method of our studies is the following. Each participant is asked to a read a story that involves: (a) the imposition of an obligation on an agent and (b) a subsequent event that makes the performance of the obligatory action impossible. Then, the participant is asked to evaluate the appropriateness of an M-sentence. M-sentences are contrasted with sentences of the form “S was supposed to φ, but (s)he cannot”. We shall refer to these sentences as displaced sentences, as they temporally displace the obligation, pushing it back in the past. One of our main predictions is that participants will opt for the displaced alternative.

International audience; An open question in the semantics of modality is what relations there are among different modal flavours. In this article, we consider the thorny issue of whether ascribing to an agent the obligation to φ implies that it is possible for the agent to φ. Traditionally, this issue has been interpreted as whether ‘ought’ implies ‘can’. But another linguistic interpretation is available as well, namely, whether ‘must’ implies ‘can’ (MIC). We show that ‘must’ does imply ‘can’ via a convergent argument. The first strand of the argument is theoretical: it consists in proving MIC from a well- established theory of modality in natural language, i.e., that proposed by Kratzer. The second strand is empirical: we present novel acceptability judgment studies showing that MIC predicts and explains the linguistic behaviour of native English speakers.

International audience; An open question in the semantics of modality is what relations there are among different modal flavours. In this article, we consider the thorny issue of whether ascribing to an agent the obligation to φ implies that it is possible for the agent to φ. Traditionally, this issue has been interpreted as whether ‘ought’ implies ‘can’. But another linguistic interpretation is available as well, namely, whether ‘must’ implies ‘can’ (MIC). We show that ‘must’ does imply ‘can’ via a convergent argument. The first strand of the argument is theoretical: it consists in proving MIC from a well- established theory of modality in natural language, i.e., that proposed by Kratzer. The second strand is empirical: we present novel acceptability judgment studies showing that MIC predicts and explains the linguistic behaviour of native English speakers.

An open question in the semantics of modality is what relations there are among different modal flavours. In this article, we consider the thorny issue of whether ascribing to an agent the obligation to φ implies that it is possible for the agent to φ. Traditionally, this issue has been interpreted as whether ‘ought’ implies ‘can’. But another linguistic interpretation is available as well, namely, whether ‘must’ implies ‘can’ (MIC). We show that ‘must’ does imply ‘can’ via a convergent argument. The first strand of the argument is theoretical: it consists in proving MIC from a well- established theory of modality in natural language, i.e., that proposed by Kratzer. The second strand is empirical: we present novel acceptability judgment studies showing that MIC predicts and explains the linguistic behaviour of native English speakers.