According to Kratzer’s influential account of epistemic must and might, these operators involve quantification over domains of possibilities determined by a modal base and an ordering source. Recently, this account has been challenged by invoking contexts of ‘epistemic tension’: i.e., cases in which an assertion that must\(\phi \) is conjoined with the possibility that \(\lnot \phi \), and cases in which speakers try to downplay a previous assertion that must\(\phi \), after finding out that \(\lnot \phi \). Epistemic tensions have been invoked from two directions. Von Fintel and Gillies (Nat Lang Semant 18(4):351–383, 2010) propose a return to a simpler modal logic-inspired account: must and might still involve universal and existential quantification, but the domains of possibilities are determined solely by realistic modal bases. In contrast, Lassiter (Nat Lang Semant 24(2):117–163, 2016), following Swanson (Interactions with context. Ph.D. thesis, MIT, 2006; and in A. Eagan and B. Weatherstone, eds., Epistemic Modality, Oxford UP, 2011), proposes a more revisionary account which treats must and might as probabilistic operators. In this paper, we present a series of experiments to obtain reliable data on the degree of acceptability of various contexts of epistemic tension. Our experiments include novel variations that, we argue, are required to make progress in this debate. We show that restricted quantificational accounts à la Kratzer fit the overall pattern of results better than either of their recent competitors. In addition, our results help us identify the key components of restricted quantificational accounts, and on that basis propose some refinements and general constraints that should be satisfied by any account of the modal auxiliaries.

中文翻译：

---

认知张力下的模态

根据求Kratzer有影响力的帐户认识的必和力量，这些运营商包括超过由模型库和排序源决定的可能性域量化。最近，通过“流行张力”的上下文来挑战该帐户：即，必须将\（\ phi \）的断言与\（\ lnot \ phi \）结合在一起的情况，以及其中说话者在发现\（\ lnot \ phi \）后尝试淡化先前必须\（\ phi \）的断言。从两个方向引起了认识紧张。冯·芬特尔（Von Fintel）和吉利斯（Gillies）（Nat Lang Semant 18（4）：351–383，2010）提出了一种回归到更简单的模态逻辑启发性的解释：必须而且可能仍然涉及普遍性和存在性量化，但是可能性的域仅由现实的情态基础。相比之下，Lassiter（Nat Lang Semant 24（2）：117–163，2016），紧随Swanson（与情境的相互作用。麻省理工学院，2006年；以及A. Eagan和B. Weatherstone编辑，, Epistemic Modality，牛津大学出版社，2011年）提出了一个更修订的说明，该说明涉及必须和可能作为概率运算符。在本文中，我们提出了一系列实验来获得关于认知张力各种情境的可接受程度的可靠数据。我们认为，我们的实验包括一些新颖的变体，这些变体需要在这场辩论中取得进展。我们证明，受限量化帐户àla Kratzer比最近的竞争对手更适合整体结果。此外，我们的结果有助于我们确定有限的量化账户的关键组成部分，并在此基础上提出一些改进和一般约束，而任何形式的辅助手段都应满足这些约束。