“Ought” and intensionality

The syntactic structure of the deontic “ought” has been much debated in philosophy and linguistics. Schroeder argues that is syntactically ambiguous sense it can be associated with either a control or raising construction. He distinguishes between deliberative evaluative “ought”s while raising. However, if there “ought,” implies which word carries an external argument. Chrisman (Australas J Philos 90(3):433–451, 2012) proposes two linguistic tests (i.e. “er”-nominalization passivization) to verify this prediction. I add new test, call intensionality list.