29.3485, Review: Cognitive Science; Pragmatics; Semantics: Lassiter (2017)

[The LINGUIST List]

LINGUIST List: Vol-29-3485. Tue Sep 11 2018. ISSN: 1069 - 4875.

Subject: 29.3485, Review: Cognitive Science; Pragmatics; Semantics: Lassiter (2017)

Moderator: linguist at linguistlist.org (Malgorzata E. Cavar)
Reviews: reviews at linguistlist.org (Helen Aristar-Dry, Robert Coté)
Homepage: https://linguistlist.org

Please support the LL editors and operation with a donation at:
           https://funddrive.linguistlist.org/donate/

Editor for this issue: Jeremy Coburn <jecoburn at linguistlist.org>
================================================================


Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2018 14:44:35
From: Kathryn P Bove [kpbove at gmail.com]
Subject: Graded Modality

 
Discuss this message:
http://linguistlist.org/pubs/reviews/get-review.cfm?subid=36374097


Book announced at http://linguistlist.org/issues/28/28-3319.html

AUTHOR: Daniel  Lassiter
TITLE: Graded Modality
SUBTITLE: Qualitative and Quantitative Perspectives
PUBLISHER: Oxford University Press
YEAR: 2017

REVIEWER: Kathryn P Bove

SUMMARY:
 
Chapter 1: Gradation, scales, and degree semantics
 
In this section, Lassiter introduces the reader to the concept of gradable
modality, importantly drawing the distinction between a gradable analysis in
adjectives, epistemic modals, and other modal elements. This section
introduces some of the similarities between gradable semantics and modality.
Lassiter communicates the purpose for the book: to build a detailed semantics
for modal expressions similar to previous analyses of gradable adjectives.
 
Chapter 2: Measurement theory and the typology of scales
 
This chapter introduces the concept of Representational Theory of Measurement
(also known as RTM or “measurement theory”), which allows researchers to take
data and decide which mathematical operations could be supported by the data
(rather than the other way around). Lassiters recommends Roberts (1979) for a
good introduction to RTM. This chapter presents some of the basic concepts of
RTM to be used in the analysis, initially without discussing numbers or
degrees before moving onto examples of ratio and interval scales that include
a more mathematical explanation. He dedicates a section to explaining the
difference between interpretation of concatenation in natural language and in
RTM, which he establishes are different. To conclude the chapter, Lassiter
describes scale types, focusing on intermediate scales, which he revisits
throughout the book.
 
Chapter 3: Previous work on graded modality: Lewis and Kratzer
 
This chapter gives an overview of two foundational theories in graded
modality: Lewis (1973) and Kratzer (1981, 1991). The key to both theories is
the idea that modality is the quantification over possible worlds, which,
until recently, has been the primary approach to understanding gradable
modality. Lassiter presents the fundamentals of the theories as well as a
discussion of strengths and shortcomings of each. He concludes the chapter by
highlighting the issue that while Lewis’ and Kratzer’s theories account for
deontic modality, both lack adequate descriptions of epistemic modality. To
account for these shortcomings, Lassiter posits that measurement theory, as
described in Chapter 2, may be able to do what Lewis and Kratzer could not.
 
Chapter 4: Epistemic adjectives: “Likely” and “probable”
 
This chapter analyzes of epistemic adjectives “likely” and “probable” using
measurement theory. Starting with a brief overview of qualities of scalar and
ratio modifiers, Lassiter reviews previous accounts of several gradable
adjectives. Kennedy (2007) suggests that “likely” and “probable”, as relative
adjectives, should fall on an open scale, which Lassiter proves cannot be the
case. Klecha (2012, 2014), who adopts Kennedy’s theory, restricts “likely” and
“possible” to an open interval (0, 1) that lacks endpoints, but Klecha argues
that endpoints can be coerced for “likely”. Lassiter points to the weakness in
this argument, saying that “likely” “lacks endpoints until it has them”
(Lassiter 2017:110) and argues that this account cannot explain cases of
degree modifying readings of “completely”/“likely” “certain”. Lassiter
concludes that instead of building on Kennedy’s theory or Klecha’s account,
the most accurate conclusion with regards to “likely” and “probable” is that
these epistemic adjectives are relative adjectives falling on an upper and
lower bounded ratio scale.
 
Chapter 5: Certainty and possibility
 
This chapter begins with a presentation of the two adjectives “certain” and
“sure”. Lassiter (2017:129) explores three possibilities for certainty and
likelihood: (1) “Certain” is structurally identical to “likely”; (2) “Certain”
differs from “likely” in that the former is not lower-bounded (Klecha 2012,
2014); (3) “Certain” orders objects of a different semantic type: sets of
propositions rather than properties (cf. Uegaki 2016). He suggests that all
possibilities have shortcomings and strengths, and he acknowledges the need
for further development of these theories. In his discussion of “possible”, he
argues that this adjective should be analyzed as scalar after presenting both
opinions in favor of and against a scalar analysis. He ends the chapter with a
comparison of possibility and likelihood, concluding that these adjectives are
identical except in their behavior (“possible” is a minimum adjective while
“likely” is a relative adjective).
 
 
Chapter 6: Implications for the epistemic auxiliaries
 
In this chapter, Lassiter shifts the discussion from scalar adjectives to
auxiliaries. He begins by demonstrating that “ϕ must” is weaker than “ϕ is
certain” stronger (contra von Fintel & Gillies 2010). Then, he presents a
review of “might” and “must” according to several theories: strong
quantificational theories (von Fintel & Gillies 2010), weak quantificational
theories (Kratzer 1991b), both (Swanson 2005), and scalar (Yalcin 2005;
Swanson 2006; Lassiter 2011a, 2016). In the end, he concludes that while a
scalar analysis is not the only way this could be captured, it certainly
presents the clearest explanation of “must” and “might”. In the following
section, Lassiter discusses the role of context sensitivity and alternative
sensitivity of “might” and “must”. Lassiter presents his own study of lottery
winners to demonstrate the differences between “might” and “possible” and
concludes that this highlights differences between ordinary language users and
philosophers. He concludes the following modal strength: 
θ possible < θ might < θ likely < θ must < θ certain.
With regards to the gradability of epistemic auxiliaries, Lassiter concludes
that “must” may be gradable, but there needs to be more work before this
conclusion can be reached; however, he does conclude that “might” lacks
degree. He ends the chapter with a discussion of epistemic “ought”. This
section introduces several ideas regarding epistemic “ought”, or as Yalcin
(2016) calls it, “pseudo-epistemic,” and Lassiter argues that this can be
understood through a scalar analysis but leaves final conclusions to future
work.
  
Chapter 7: Scalar goodness
 
This chapter begins the conversation of deontic language with the adjectives
“good” and “bad”. Lassiter argues that this sets up the scalar concept of
goodness used in the following chapter. He begins by presenting “good” as a
relative adjective that is context-dependent and suggests that is may also be
sensitive to alternatives. Upon treating “good” as an interval scale, he
rejects the idea that “goodness” is positive or maximal, suggesting
intermediacy is the most logical possibility. In search of a semantics that
treats “good” as a interval scale that is intermediate with respect to
disjunction, Lassiter uses the concept of expected value, which applies
possible worlds to real numbers. Using this approach, he concludes that “good”
is intermediate, information-sensitive, and rich enough to support
quantitative analyses. 
 
Chapter 8: “Ought” and “should”
 
Building on the theory developed for “good” in Chapter 7, Lassiter extends
this theory to deontic “ought” and “should”. He points out similarities
between “ought”, “should”, and “better”, and while some researchers have
suggested defining “ought” and “should” in terms of “better”, Lassiter
concludes that this is problematic. Lassiter introduces three concepts to
better understand the semantics of “ought”: 
(1) Sloman’s (1970) Principle: ought(Φ)⇒∀ψ ≠ Φ ∈ ALT (Φ) : Φ >good ψ
(2) The Smith argument: [Φ ∨ ψ = W ∧ ought (Φ) ∧ ought (ψ) ]⇒ ought (Φ ∧ ψ) 
(3) Weakening: [ ought (Φ) ∧ ought (ψ) ] ⇒ ought  (Φ ∨ ψ)  (Lassiter
2017:240). 
Lassiter argues that “ought” and “should” validate the use of a combined
approach involving his updated Sloman’s Principle and scalar goodness. He
concludes the chapter by stating that there is still much to be done, but this
analysis is a good first step towards better understanding the gradable nature
of deontic predicates.
 
EVALUATION:
 
“Graded Modality” is a well-written book that explores a topic that, as the
author notes, has been the subject of much debate. While the book is based on
Lassiter’s 2011 NYU dissertation, he does an excellent job of revisiting the
recent work published on the topic, which has been plentiful in recent years.
Analyses of graded modality up to this point have primarily analogized these
modals with quantifiers such as “some”, “all”, and “none”, but Lassiter
successfully demonstrates that graded modals are more comparable to scalar
adjectives like “big” or “full”. With this book, Lassiter aims to better
explain the complex topic of graded modality by bringing together several
semantic analyses of modals and graded adjectives as well as the mathematical
notion of measurement theory. He states that “theories have much to gain by
engaging with the rich, sophisticated literature on related topics from
neighboring fields” (xiv). Lassiter is able to accomplish this, providing a
novel analysis of frequently discussed topics using several notions from a
variety of subfields within linguistics and from neighboring mathematics.
 
As the tenth book in the series “Oxford Studies in Semantics and Pragmatics”,
this text makes an excellent contribution to the collection. Lassiter
approaches modality by allowing several different theories to interact to
better understand how modals behave. He is a part of the group of researchers
that pioneer the idea of approaching modality with a gradable analysis. As
such, there are many unanswered questions in the book, and, as the author
notes, there is much left for future investigation; however, Lassiter’s
discussion of these unanswered questions is sufficient for the purposes of
this book, and the reader does not feel like Lassiter has left a topic without
properly addressing it.
 
While this book is filled with complex topics from a variety of fields in and
out of linguistics, Lassiter does a great job explaining the relevant
information, giving natural language examples that enhance the descriptions.
In two chapters (Chapters 6 and 9) he presents his own quantitative data
collected through the Amazon Mechanical Turk Platform, which enhance his
arguments; however, additional details including specifics of prompts seen by
participants would make his explanations clearer.  He consistently ties his
conclusions into previous chapters, and his arguments, overall, are easy to
follow. The writing would benefit from a consistency in notations; Lassiter
provides what seems like an almost random assortment of extensive,
paragraph-length notes to the reader within parenthesis as well as footnotes.
An unexpected benefit in the book is the reading guide that Lassiter lays out
in the preface (xvii); he gives suggestions for an abbreviated read for those
with a solid foundation in degree semantics, those especially interested in
epistemic modality, and those interested in deontic modality. While previous
knowledge of modality or measurement theory would make for an easier read,
Lassiter explains most concepts in depth, making the text appropriate for both
student and professional semantics researchers.
  
REFERENCES

Fintel, Kai von & Anthony Gillies. 2010. Must...stay...strong! Natural
Language Semantics 18(4), 351-383.

Kennedy, Chis. 2007. Vagueness and grammar: The semantics of relative and
absolutive gradable adjectives. Linguistics and Philosophy 30(1), 1-45.

Klecha, Peter. 2012. Positive and conditional semantics for gradable modals.
In Anna Chernilovskaya Ana Aguilar Guevara, & Rick Nouwen (eds.), Sinn und
Bedeutung 16, vol. 2, 363-376. MIT Press.

Klecha, Peter. 2014. Bridging the divide: Scalarity and modality. University
of Chicago dissertation.

Kratzer, Angelika. 1981. The notional category of modality. In H.J. Eikmeyer &
H. Rieser (eds.), Words, Worlds, and Context, 38-74. De Gruyter.

Kratzer, Angelika. 1991. Modality. In A. von Stechow & D. Wunderlich (eds.),
Semantics: An international hanbook of contemporary research, 639-650. De
Gruyter

Lassiter, Daniel. 2011. Measurement and modality: The scalar basis of modal
semantics. New York University dissertation.

Lassiter, Daniel. 2016. Must, knowledge, and (in)directness. Natural Language
Semantics 24(2), 117-163.

Lewis, David. 1973. Counterfactuals. Harvard University Press. 

Lewis, David. 1979. Scorekeeping in a language game. Journal of Philosophical
Logic 8(1), 339-359.

Roberts, Fred S. 1979. Measurement theory with applications to decisionmaking,
utility, and the social sciences. Addison Wesley Publishing Company.

Sloman, Aaron. 1970. “Ought” and “Better”. Mind 75(315), 385-394.

Swanson, Eric. 2006. Interactions with context. MIT dissertation.

Uegaki, Wataru. 2016. Content nouns and the semantics of question-embedding.
Journal of Semantics 33(4), 623-660

Yalcin, Seth. 2005. A puzzle about epistemic modals. MIT Working Papers in
LInguistics 51, 231-272.

Yalcin, Seth. 2016. Modalities of normality. In Matthew Chrisman & Nate
Charlow (eds.), Deontic modals, 230-255. Oxford University Press.


ABOUT THE REVIEWER

Kathryn Bove is a PhD candidate at the University of Georgia, currently
finishing up her dissertation on mood and epistemic modality of Yucatec
Spanish, a contact variety of Spanish spoken in Yucatán, Mexico. Her interests
include semantics, the semantic/syntactic interface, language contact,
bilingualism, and language documentation.





------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*****************    LINGUIST List Support    *****************
Please support the LL editors and operation with a donation at:

              The IU Foundation Crowd Funding site:
       https://iufoundation.fundly.com/the-linguist-list

               The LINGUIST List FundDrive Page:
            https://funddrive.linguistlist.org/donate/
 


----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-29-3485	
----------------------------------------------------------