Must . . . stay . . . strong!

Kai von Fintel, Anthony S. Gillies

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

157 Scopus citations


It is a recurring matra that epistemic must creates a statement that is weaker than the corresponding flat-footed assertion: It must be raining vs. It's raining. Contrary to classic discussions of the phenomenon such as by Karttunen, Kratzer, and Veltman, we argue that instead of having a weak semantics, must presupposes the presence of an indirect inference or deduction rather than of a direct observation. This is independent of the strength of the claim being made. Epistemic must is therefore quite similar to evidential markers of indirect evidence known from languages with rich evidential systems. We work towards a formalization of the evidential component, relying on a structured model of information states (analogous to some models used in the belief dynamics literature). We explain why in many contexts, one can perceive a lack of confidence on the part of the speaker who uses must.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)351-383
Number of pages33
JournalNatural Language Semantics
Issue number4
StatePublished - Dec 2010
Externally publishedYes


  • Epistemic
  • Evidentiality
  • Modality

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Philosophy
  • Linguistics and Language


Dive into the research topics of 'Must . . . stay . . . strong!'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this