Advertisement

Linguistics and Philosophy

, Volume 30, Issue 1, pp 1–45 | Cite as

Vagueness and grammar: the semantics of relative and absolute gradable adjectives

  • Christopher KennedyEmail author
Research Article

Abstract

This paper investigates the way that linguistic expressions influence vagueness, focusing on the interpretation of the positive (unmarked) form of gradable adjectives. I begin by developing a semantic analysis of the positive form of ‘relative’ gradable adjectives, expanding on previous proposals by further motivating a semantic basis for vagueness and by precisely identifying and characterizing the division of labor between the compositional and contextual aspects of its interpretation. I then introduce a challenge to the analysis from the class of ‘absolute’ gradable adjectives: adjectives that are demonstrably gradable, but which have positive forms that relate objects to maximal or minimal degrees, and do not give rise to vagueness. I argue that the truth conditional difference between relative and absolute adjectives in the positive form stems from the interaction of lexical semantic properties of gradable adjectives—the structure of the scales they use—and a general constraint on interpretive economy that requires truth conditions to be computed on the basis of conventional meaning to the extent possible, allowing for context dependent truth conditions only as a last resort.

Keywords

Vagueness Gradability Context sensitivity Borderline cases Sorites Paradox Comparison class Scale structure 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abney, S. P. (1987). The English noun phrase in its sentential aspect. Ph.D. thesis. Cambridge, Mass: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
  2. Austin J.L. (1961). The meaning of a word. In: Urmson J.O., Warnock G.J. (eds) Philosophical papers. Oxford, Oxford University Press, pp 55–75Google Scholar
  3. Barker C. (2002) The dynamics of vagueness. Linguistics and Philosophy 25(1):1-36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bartsch R., Vennemann T. (1972). The grammar of relative adjectives and comparison. Linguistische Berichte 20, 19-32Google Scholar
  5. Bartsch R., Vennemann T. (1973). Semantic structures: A study in the relation between syntax and semantics. Frankfurt, Athäenum VerlagGoogle Scholar
  6. Bhatt R., Pancheva R. (2004). Late merger of degree clauses. Linguistic Inquiry 35: 1-46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bierwisch M. (1989). The Semantics of gradation. In: Bierwisch M., Lang E. (eds) Dimensional adjectives. Berlin, Springer-Verlag, pp 71–261Google Scholar
  8. Boguslawski A. (1975). Measures are Measures: In Defence of the Diversity of Comparatives and Positives. Linguistiche Berichte 36: 1-9Google Scholar
  9. Bosch P. (1983). “Vagueness” is context-dependence. A solution to the sorites paradox. In: Ballmer T., Pinkal M. (eds) Approaching vagueness. Amsterdam, North Holland, pp 189–210Google Scholar
  10. Cappelen H., Lepore E. (2005). A tall tale: In Defence of Semantic Minimalism and Speech Act Pluralism. In: Preyer G., Peter G. (eds) Contextualism in philosophy: Knowledge, meaning and truth. Oxford, Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  11. Corver, N. (1990). The syntax of left branch extractions. Ph.D. thesis, Tilburg University.Google Scholar
  12. Cresswell M.J. (1977). The semantics of degree. In: Partee B. (ed) Montague grammar. New York, Academic Press, pp 261–292Google Scholar
  13. Cruse D.A. (1986). Lexical semantics. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press, UKGoogle Scholar
  14. Dalrymple M., Kanazawa M., Kim Y., Mchombo S., Peters S. (1998). Reciprocal expressions and the concept of reciprocity. Linguistics and Philosophy 21(2): 159-210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dowty D.R. (1991). Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language 67: 547–619CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fine K. (1975). Vagueness, truth and logic. Synthese 30: 265-300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Giannakidou A. (2004). Domain restriction and the arguments of quantificational determiners. In: Young R. (ed) Proceedings of SALT 14. Ithaca, NY, pp 110–128Google Scholar
  18. Graff D. (2000). Shifting sands: An interest-relative theory of vagueness. Philosophical Topics 20: 45-81Google Scholar
  19. Grimshaw, J. (1991). Extended projection. Unpublished ms., Brandeis University.Google Scholar
  20. Hackl, M. (2000). Comparative quantifiers. Ph.D. thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
  21. Hankamer J. (1973). Why there are two ‘than’s in English. In: Corum C., Smith-Stark T.C., Weiser A. (eds) Proceedings of the 9th Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society. Chicago, ILGoogle Scholar
  22. Heim, I. (1985). Notes on comparatives and related matters. Ms., University of Texas.Google Scholar
  23. Heim I. (2000). Degree operators and scope. In: Jackson B., Matthews T.(eds) Semantics and Linguistic Theory 10. CLC Publication Ithaca, NY, pp 40–64Google Scholar
  24. Heim I., Kratzer A. (1998). Semantics in generative grammar. Oxford, BlackwellGoogle Scholar
  25. Hellan, L. (1981). Towards an integrated analysis of comparatives.Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
  26. Hoeksema J. (1984). Negative polarity and the comparative. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 1: 403–434CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jacobson P. (1999). Towards a variable-free semantics. Linguistics and Philosophy 22: 117-184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Jacobson, P. (2005). Variable free semantics: The case of quantifier domain restrictions. Lecture at the Institut Jean Nicod, June 10, 2005.Google Scholar
  29. Jacobson, P. (2006). Direct compositionality and variable free semantics: Taking the surprise out of “complex variables”. Lecture at the 30th Penn Linguistics Colloquium, University of Pennsylvania, February 25, 2006.Google Scholar
  30. Kamp H. (1975). Two theories of adjectives. In: Keenan E. (ed) Formal semantics of natural language. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, pp 123–155Google Scholar
  31. Kamp H. (1981). The paradox of the heap. In: Mö nnich U. (ed) Aspects of philosophical logic. Dordrecht, ReidelGoogle Scholar
  32. Kennedy, C. (1999). Projecting the adjective: The syntax and semantics of gradability and comparison. New York: Garland. (1997 UCSC Ph.D thesis).Google Scholar
  33. Kennedy C. (2001). Polar opposition and the ontology of ‘degrees’. Linguistics and philosophy 24: 33-70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kennedy C., McNally L. (1999). From event structure to scale structure: Degree modification in deverbal adjectives. In: Matthews T., Strolovitch D. (eds) Semantics and linguistic theory 9. Ithaca, NY, pp 163–180Google Scholar
  35. Kennedy C., McNally L. (2005). Scale structure and the semantic typology of gradable predicates. Language 81(2): 345-381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Klein E. (1980). A semantics for positive and comparative adjectives. Linguistics and philosophy 4: 1-45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Klein E. (1991). Comparatives. In: von Stechow A., Wunderlich D. (eds) Semantik: Ein Internationales Handbuch der Zeitgenössischen Forschung. Berlin, Walter de Gruyter, pp 673–691Google Scholar
  38. Kyburg A., Morreau M. (2000). Fitting words: Vague language in context. Linguistics and philosophy 23(6): 577-597CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Larson R.K. (1988). Scope and comparatives. Linguistics and philosophy 11: 1–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lasersohn P. (1999). Pragmatic Halos. Language 75(3): 522-551CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lewis D.K. (1970). General semantics. Synthese 22: 18-67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lewis, D. K. (1979). Attitudes de dicto and de se. The Philosophical Review, 88(4), 513-543. Reprinted with postscripts in lewis (1983).Google Scholar
  43. Lewis, D. K. (1983). Philosophical papers, Vol. I. Oxford, Great Britain: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Ludlow P. (1989). Implicit comparison classes. Linguistics and philosophy 12: 519-533CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Martí, M. L. (2002). Contextual variables. Ph.D. thesis, University of Connecticut.Google Scholar
  46. McConnell-Ginet, S. (1973). Comparative constructions in English: A syntactic and semantic analysis. Ph.D. thesis, University of Rochester.Google Scholar
  47. Meier, C. (2003). The meaning of Too, Enough, and So ... That. Natural language semantics, 11(1), 69-107.Google Scholar
  48. Montague, R. (1974). English as a formal language. In R. Thomason (Ed.), Formal philosophy: Selected papers (pp. 188-221). New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Neeleman A., Van de Koot H., Doetjes J. (2004). Degree expressions. The linguistic review 21(21): 1-66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Paradis C. (2001). Adjectives and boundedness. Cognitive linguistics 12(1): 47-65Google Scholar
  51. Pinkal, M. (1979). Semantics from different points of view. In R. Bäurle, U. Egli, & A. von Stechow (Eds.), How to refer with vague descriptions (pp. 32-50). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  52. Pinkal M. (1995). Logic and lexicon. Dordrecht, KluwerGoogle Scholar
  53. Raffman D. (1994) Vagueness without paradox. The Philosophical review 103: 41-74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Raffman D. (1996). Vagueness and context relativity. Philosophical studies 81: 175-192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Rotstein C., Winter Y. (2004). Total adjectives vs. partial adjectives: Scale structure and higher order modifiers. Natural Language Semantics 12: 259-288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Rusiecki J. (1985). On adjectives and comparison in English. New York, Longman Linguistics LibraryGoogle Scholar
  57. Sapir E. (1944). Grading: A study in semantics. Philosophy of Science 11: 93-116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Sawada, O. (2005). The possible semantic diversity of the comparative constructions in English and Japanese: A construction based approach. Paper presented at the 9th International Cognitive Linguistics Conference, Yonsei University, Korea, July 19, 2005.Google Scholar
  59. Schwarzschild R. (2005). Measure phrases as modifiers of adjectives. Recherches Linguistiques de Vincennes 35: 207-228Google Scholar
  60. Sedivy J., Tanenhaus M., Chambers C., Carlson G. (1999). Achieving incremental semantic interpretation through contextual representations. Cognition 71: 109-147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Seuren, P. A. (1973). The comparative. In F. Kiefer, & N. Ruwet (Eds.), Generative grammar in Europe. (pp. 528-564), Dordrecht: Riedel.Google Scholar
  62. Soames S. (1999). Understanding truth. Oxford, Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  63. Stanley J. (2000). Context and logical form. Linguistics and philosophy 23(4): 391-434CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Stanley J. (2002). Nominal restriction. In: Peter G., Preyer G. (eds) Logical form and language. Oxford, Oxford University Press, pp 365–368Google Scholar
  65. Stanley J. (2003). Context, interest relativity, and the sorites. Analysis 4(63): 269-280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Stanley J., Szabó Z. (2000). On quantifier domain restriction. Mind and Language 15: 219-261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Steedman M. (2000). The syntactic process. Cambridge, Mass, MIT PressGoogle Scholar
  68. Svenonious, P., & Kennedy, C. (2005). Northern norwegian degree questions and the grammar of measurement. paper presented at the 31st Incontro di Grammatica Generativa, Universita’ Roma 3, 25 February, 2005.Google Scholar
  69. Syrett, K., Bradley, E., Kennedy, C. & Lidz, J. (2005). Shifting standards: Children’s understanding of gradable adjectives. Paper presented at the 2005 Annual Meeting of the Linguistics Society of America, San Francisco, CA.Google Scholar
  70. Syrett, K., Lidz, J., & Kennedy, C. (2006a). Scalar structures and the semantic representations of adjectives in child language. Paper presented at the 42nd Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
  71. Syrett, K., Lidz, J., & Kennedy, C. (2006b). The semantic typology of gradable adjectives: experimental evidence from adult and child language. Poster presented at the 2006 Annual Meeting of the CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing.Google Scholar
  72. Tappenden J. (1993). The liar and Sorites Paradoxes: Toward a unified treatment. Journal of Philosophy 90: 551-577CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Travis C. (1996). Meaning’s role in truth. Mind 105: 451-466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Unger P. (1975). Ignorance. Oxford, Clarendon PressGoogle Scholar
  75. von Fintel, K. (1994). Restrictions on quantifier domains. Ph.D. thesis, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
  76. von Stechow A. (1984). Comparing semantic theories of comparison. Journal of semantics 3, 1-77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Wheeler S. (1972). Attributives and their modifiers. Noûs 6(4): 310-334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Williamson T. (1992). Vagueness and ignorance. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 66: 145-162Google Scholar
  79. Williamson T. (1994). Vagueness. London, RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
  80. Yoon Y. (1996). Total and partial predicates and the weak and strong interpretations. Natural Language semantics 4: 217-236CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of LinguisticsUniversity of ChicagoChicagoUSA

Personalised recommendations