von Fintel & Gillies (2021): Still Going Strong

[vFG21]

Follow-up to [vFG10]: the indirectness signal of must is anti-knowledge, not anti-perception — direct-enough knowledge blocks must even without perceptual evidence (Phil/Meryl dinner pair) — and can't φ is incompatible with it's possible that φ (Observation 5).

Main declarations

• evidential_restriction_extends: the 2010 felicity ↔ indirectness biconditional holds on the anti-knowledge rows

def VonFintelGillies2021.mustPairs : List Data.Examples.LinguisticExample

Rows whose primary text is the modalized member of a bare/modal minimal pair.

Equations

• VonFintelGillies2021.mustPairs = List.filter (fun (x : Data.Examples.LinguisticExample) => x.feature? "kind" == some "must_pair") VonFintelGillies2021.Examples.all

theorem VonFintelGillies2021.evidential_restriction_extends (row : Data.Examples.LinguisticExample) : row ∈ mustPairs → (row.judgment = Features.Judgment.acceptable ↔ Option.map VonFintelGillies2010.EvidenceType.toCoarseSource (VonFintelGillies2010.evidenceOf row) ≠ some Features.Evidentiality.CoarseSource.direct)

Anti-knowledge: the evidential restriction extends to rows where "direct" is direct-enough knowledge rather than perception. Phil, who checked everything himself, cannot say Dinner must be ready (ex. 24); Meryl, whose information is indirect, can (ex. 25).