Abstract
In this work, we compare the interpretation of relative gradable adjectives like large with their stronger scale-mates (gigantic) and corresponding antonyms (small and tiny) in their non-negated form and under negation. Relative adjectives map their arguments onto abstract representations of measurement with a contextually determined standard of comparison (e.g., Kennedy and McNally, Language 81: 345–381, 2005). Recent work has demonstrated an interplay between the properties of the measurement scale underlying the semantics of adjectives and their associated pragmatic inferences (Gotzner et al. 2018a, b). In our new experimental scenario, we asked participants to associate different negated and non-negated terms and on a scale in a grading scenario. We show that, in this grading scenario, participants use distinct portions of a scale when interpreting statements involving non-negated relative adjectives. When the same terms appear under negation, participants distinguish positive weak terms (not large) from their stronger scale-mates (not gigantic) but not the corresponding negative antonyms (not tiny and not small). The pattern is reminiscent of the so-called polarity asymmetry of negative strengthening with negative terms as well as strong positive terms receiving a middling interpretation (Horn, A natural history of negation, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1989). This polarity asymmetry occurred for negated weak but not strong scalar terms, where both positive and negative terms received a middling interpretation. We discuss several accounts of the polarity asymmetry of negative strengthening and conclude that accounts appealing to a single notion (evaluativity, face-threatening potential, or complexity) cannot explain the full pattern of results we observed.
This work was supported by the German Research Foundation (DFG) as part of the Xprag.de Initiative (Grant Nr. BE 4348/4–1) as well as an Emmy Noether grant awarded to NG (Grant Nr. GO 3378/1–1). We are grateful to Louise McNally for helpful comments on an earlier version of this manuscript. NG and SK designed the experiment. NG analyzed the data and wrote the article.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
She is also the best Jedi Master on Earth, if that is not a contradiction.
- 2.
- 3.
In principle, negative strengthening is available for modified absolute adjectives and when contradictory antonyms are coerced into having a middle ground (see especially Horn 1989 for examples).
- 4.
In the literature of antonymy positive and negative terms have been defined based on three notions of polarity; markedness, dimensionality, and evaluativity (see Cruse 1986). The antonymic pairs of the current study were chosen to be consistently positive and negative across different notions of polarity (see Ruytenbeek et al. 2017 for possible mismatches and ways to operationalize the notions of polarity).
References
Bartsch, R., & Venneman, T. (1973). Semantic structures: A study in the relation between syntax and semantics. Frankfurt: Athenäum Verlag.
Bierwisch, M. (1989). The semantics of gradation. Dimensional adjectives, ed. by M. Bierwisch & E. Lang, 71–261. Berlin: Springer Verlag.
Blutner, R., & Solstad, T. (2000). Dimensional designation: A case study in lexical pragmatics. Studies in Optimality Theory, 30–40.
Bolinger, D. (1972). Degree Words. The Hague: Mouton.
Boucher, J., & Osgood, C. E. (1969). The Pollyanna hypothesis. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 8, 1–8.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Christensen, R. H. B. (2015). Analysis of ordinal data with cumulative link models—Estimation with the R-package ordinal. R-package version, 28.
Colston, H. L. (1999). “Not good” is “bad,” but “not bad” is not “good”: An analysis of three accounts of negation asymmetry. Discourse Processes, 28(3), 237–256.
Cresswell, M. J. (1977). The semantics of degree. Montague grammar, ed. by B. H. Partee, 261–292. New York: Academic Press.
Cruse, A. (1986). Lexical semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Doran, R., Baker R. E., McNabb Y., Larson M., & Ward, G. (2009). On the non-unified nature of scalar implicature: An empirical investigation. International Review of Pragmatics, 1, 211–248.
Ducrot, O. (1973). Le rôle de la négation dans le langage ordinaire. La preuve et le dire. Tours: Mame.
Fraenkel, T., & Schul, Y. (2008). The meaning of negated adjectives. Intercultural Pragmatics, 5(4), 517–540.
Giora, R., Balaban, N., Fein, O., & Alkabets, I. (2005). Negation as positivity in disguise. Figurative language comprehension: Social and cultural influences, 233–258.
Gotzner, N., & Benz, A. (2018). The best response paradigm: A new approach to test implicatures of complex sentences. Frontiers in Communication, 2(21). https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2017.00021.
Gotzner, N., & Mazzarella, D. (2021). Face management and negative strengthening: The role of power relations, social distance and gender. Frontiers in psychology: Experimental approaches to pragmatics. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.602977.
Gotzner, N., Solt, S., & Benz, A. (2018a). Scalar diversity, negative strengthening, and adjectival semantics. Frontiers in Psychology, 9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01659.
Gotzner, N., Solt, S., & Benz, A. (2018b). Adjectival scales and three types of implicature. Semantics and Linguistic Theory, 28, 409–432.
Horn, L. R. (1984). Toward a new taxonomy for pragmatic inference: Q-based and R-based implicature in context. In Shiffrin, D. (ed.), Meaning, form, and use in context (pp. 11–42). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Horn, L. R. (1989). A natural history of negation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Hirschberg, J. (1985). A theory of scalar implicature. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.
Israel, M. (2004). The pragmatics of polarity. The handbook of pragmatics, ed. by L. R. Horn & G. Ward, 701–723. Oxford: Blackwell.
Kennedy, C. (2001). Polar opposition and the ontology of ‘degrees’. Linguistics and philosophy, 24(1), 33–70.
Kennedy, C. (2007). Vagueness and grammar: The semantics of relative and absolute gradable adjectives. Linguistics and Philosophy, 30, 1–45.
Kennedy, C., & McNally, L. (2005). Scale structure, degree modification and the semantics of gradable predicates. Language, 81, 345–381.
Krifka, M. (2007). Negated antonyms: Creating and filling the gap. Presupposition and implicature in compositional semantics: Palgrave studies in pragmatics, language and cognition, ed. by U. Sauerland & P. Stateva, 163–177. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.
Leffel, T., Cremers, A., Gotzner, N., & Romoli, J. (2019). Vagueness in implicature: The case of modified adjectives. Journal of Semantics, 36, 317–348.
Levinson, S. C. (2000). Presumptive meanings: The theory of generalized conversational implicature. MIT Press.
Mazzarella, D., & Gotzner, N. (2021). The polarity asymmetry of negative strengthening: Dissociating adjectival polarity from face-threatening potential. Glossa: Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 6 (1), 47. http://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.1342.
Paradis, C., & Willners, C. (2006). Antonymy and negation—The boundedness hypothesis. Journal of Pragmatics, 38(7), 1051–1080.
Rotstein, C., & Winter, Y. (2004). Total adjectives vs. partial adjectives: Scale structure and higher-order modifiers. Natural Language Semantics, 12, 259–288.
Ruytenbeek, N., Verheyen, S., & Spector, B. (2017). Asymmetric inference towards the antonym: Experiments into the polarity and morphology of negated adjectives. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 2(1), 92, 1–27.
Sapir, E. (1944). Grading: A study in semantics. The collected works of Edward Sapir, I, ed. by Pierre Swiggers, 447–470. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2008 (reprint).
Solt, S. (2015). Measurement scales in natural language. Language and Linguistics Compass, 9(1), 14–32.
Terkourafi, M., Weissman, B., & Roy, J. (2020). Different scalar terms are affected by face differently. International Review of Pragmatics, 12(1), 1–43.
Tessler, M. H., & Franke, M. (2018). Not unreasonable: Carving vague dimensions with contraries and contradictions. In Proceedings of CogSci 40, ed. by Charles Kalish, Martina Rau, Jerry Zhu, & Timothy T. Rogers, 1108–1113.
van Tiel, B., van Miltenburg, E., Zevakhina, N., & Geurts, B. (2016). Scalar diversity. Journal of Semantics, 33, 107–135. https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffu017.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Gotzner, N., Kiziltan, S. (2022). She is Brilliant! Distinguishing Different Readings of Relative Adjectives. In: Gotzner, N., Sauerland, U. (eds) Measurements, Numerals and Scales. Palgrave Studies in Pragmatics, Language and Cognition. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-73323-0_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-73323-0_7
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-73322-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-73323-0
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)