Deontic Modals Reading

[Aaron E.]

Hi Group,

Jan has given me the first batch of papers on deontic modals for next week.

She said we should read the first two sections of her paper (section 0 and 1; through p. 5), then chapter 11 "Ought" (p. 337-364), then finish her paper.

See you all next Tuesday

Aaron.

[Aaron E.]

We still have to decide what we will do for next week.  We have the following remaining of Jan's suggestions.

Kratzer vs critics on some puzzles from deontic logic

A couple of papers from linguistics and Phil Lang on whether "must" functions in part as an imperative

Schroeder's paper defending the claim that deontic "ought" is ambiguous

So, why doesn't everyone send me an email ranking these options (don't send it to the group, because we don't need to flood everyone else's emails too).

Please let me know ASAP (tonight?), so I can tell Jan, so she can give me articles, so I can give you articles.

(Preston and Shane: I think the Finley paper we read last year for the Chambers conference was in response to the Schroeder paper, in case that influences how you feel)


Best,

Aaron

[Aaron E.]

We had the most interest in doing the Schroeder (ambiguity of ought) paper.  It's probably a good choice, since it might be relevant to a certain section of his book.

Jan also gave us a response by Chrisman as optional.


Best,

Aaron

[Aaron E.]

Next week we will be doing reading on puzzle cases for Kratzer's contextualist semantics for ought statements.

I will post the readings as soon as I get them from Jan.

Best,
Aaron



On Tuesday, January 15, 2013 6:13:26 PM UTC-6, Aaron E. wrote:

[Aaron E.]

From Jan:

It now seems to me a bit absurd to think that we'll get through discussing all of both papers in an hour and a half next week.  So, why don't we plan on this?  We'll read all of the Cariani paper, with a plan of focussing our discussion on the objections he thinks Ross's Puzzle and Prof. Procrastinate pose for the Kratzerian view, as well as his positive view and how he thinks his view adequately addresses those puzzles.  Then, we'll read just sections 1 and 2 of von Fintel's paper.

Of course, we can always decide when we meet that we'd like to discuss other parts of those papers.  But I'm thinking it might be good to have something that we're all focusing on in our reading.