Linguistics and Philosophy

, Volume 37, Issue 1, pp 1–39 | Cite as

A Delineation solution to the puzzles of absolute adjectives

  • Heather BurnettEmail author
Research Article


The paper presents both new data and a new analysis of the semantic and pragmatic properties of the class of absolute scalar adjectives (ex. dry, wet, straight, bent, flat, empty, full…) within an extension of a well-known logical framework for the analysis of gradable predicates: the delineation semantics framework (DelS) (see Klein, Linguist Philos 4:1–45, 1980; van Benthem, Pac Philos Q 63:193–203, 1982; van Rooij, J Semant 28:335–358, 2011b, among many others). It has been long observed that the context-sensitivity, vagueness and gradability features of absolute scalar predicates give rise to certain puzzles for their analysis within most, if not all, modern formal semantic frameworks. While there exist proposals for solving these puzzles within other major frameworks (such as the degree semantics framework), it has been argued that some of their aspects are particularly challenging for the analysis of absolute scalar predicates within the delineation approach. By combining insights into the relationship between context-sensitivity and scalarity from the DelS framework with insights into the relationship between tolerance/similarity relations and the Sorites paradox from Cobreros et al.’s (2012) Tolerant, Classical, Strict (TCS) framework, I propose a new logical system, called Delineation TCS (DelTCS), in which to set analyses of four classes of adjectival predicates. I argue that this new framework allows for an analysis of absolute scalar adjectives that answers these challenges for delineation-based frameworks, while still preserving the heart of the Klein-ian approach.


Semantics Pragmatics Scale structure Vagueness Natural logic Context-sensitivity Imprecision Adjectives 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Alxatib, S., & Pelletier, J. (2010). The psychology of vagueness: Borderline cases and contradictions. Mind & Language, 26, 287–326.Google Scholar
  2. Austin J. (1962) How to do things with words. Clarendon, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  3. Bale A. (2011) Scales and comparison classes. Natural Language Semantics 19: 169–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beavers, J. (2008). Scalar complexity and the structure of events. In J. Dölling & T. Heyde-Zybatow (Eds.), Event structures in linguistic form and interpretation. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  5. Burnett, H. (2012). The grammar of tolerance: On vagueness, context-sensitivity, and the origin of scale structure. PhD thesis, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
  6. Burnett, H. (in press) Penumbral Connections in Comparative Constructions. Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics.Google Scholar
  7. Cobreros P., Égré P., Ripley D., van Rooij R. (2012) Tolerant, classical, strict. Journal of Philosophical Logic 41: 347–385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cresswell, M. (1977). The semantics of degree. In B. Partee (Ed.), Montague grammar (pp. 261–292). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  9. Cruse, D. (1980). Antonyms and gradable complementaries. In D. Kastovsky (Ed.), Perspectiven der Lexikalischen Semantik: Beiträge zum Wuppertaler Semantikkolloquium vom 2–3, Dec. 1977 (pp. 14–25). Bonn: Bouvier.Google Scholar
  10. Cruse D. (1986) Lexical semantics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
  11. Doetjes, J. (2010). Incommensurability. In M. Aloni, H. Bastiaanse, T. Jager, & K. Schultz (Eds.), Logic, language, and meaning: Proceedings of the 17th Amsterdam colloquium (pp. 254–263). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  12. Doetjes, J.,Constantinescu, C., & Soucková, K. (2011). A neo-Klein-ian approach to comparatives. In S. Ito & E. Cormanu (Eds.), Proceedings of semantics and linguistic theory 19 (pp. 124–141). Amherst: University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  13. Égré, P., & Bonnay, D. (2010). Vagueness, uncertainty, and degrees of clarity. Synthese, 174, 47–78.Google Scholar
  14. Égré, P., & Klinedinst, N. (2011). Introduction. In P. Égré & N. Klinedinst (Eds.), Vagueness and language use. Oxford: Palgrave MacMillan.Google Scholar
  15. Foppolo, F., & Panzeri, F. (2011). Do children know when their room counts as “clean”? In GLSA (Ed.), Proceedings of NELS42. Amherst: GLSA Publications.Google Scholar
  16. Hahn U., Chater N. (1998) Similarity and rules: Distinct? exhaustive? empirically distinguishable?. Cognition 65: 197–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hay, J., Kennedy, C., & Levin, B. (1999). Scalar structure underlies telicity in degree achievements. In Proceedings of SALT IX (pp. 127–144).Google Scholar
  18. Hobbes, J. (1985). Granularity. In Proceedings of the ninth international joint conference on artificial intelligence (pp. 432–435).Google Scholar
  19. Kamp, H. (1975). Two theories about adjectives. In E. Keenan (Ed.), Formal semantics of natural language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Kamp H., Rossdeutscher A. (1994) DRS-construction and lexically driven inferences. Theoretical Linguistics 20: 165–235Google Scholar
  21. Keenan E., Faltz L. (1985) Boolean semantics for natural language. Reidel, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  22. Kennedy, C. (1997). Projecting the adjective. PhD thesis, University of California, Santa Cruz.Google Scholar
  23. Kennedy C. (2007) Vagueness and grammar: The study of relative and absolute gradable predicates. Linguistics and Philosophy 30: 1–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kennedy, C. (2011). Vagueness and comparison. In P. Égré & N. Klinedinst (Eds.), Vagueness and language use (pp. 1–24). Oxford: Palgrave Press.Google Scholar
  25. Kennedy, C., & Levin, B. (2008). Measures of change: The adjectival core of degree achievements. In L. McNally & C. Kennedy (Eds.), Adjectives and adverbs: Syntax, semantics, and discourse (pp. 156–182). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Kennedy C., McNally L. (2005) Scale structure and the semantic typology of gradable predicates. Language 81: 345–381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Klein E. (1980) A semantics for positive and comparative adjectives. Linguistics and Philosophy 4: 1–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Klein, E. (1991). Comparatives. In A. von Stechow & D. Wunderlich (Eds.), Semantics: An international handbook of contemporary research (pp. 673–691). Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  29. Kyburg A., Morreau M. (2000) Fitting words: Vague language in context. Linguistics and Philosophy 23: 577–597CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lakoff G. (1987) Women, fire and dangerous things. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Larson R. (1988) Scope and comparatives. Linguistics and Philosophy 11: 1–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lasersohn P. (1999) Pragmatic halos. Linguistics and Philosophy 75: 522–571Google Scholar
  33. Lewis D. (1970) General semantics. Synthese 22: 18–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lewis D. (1979) Score-keeping in a language game. Journal of Philosophical Logic 8: 339–359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Luce R. (1956) Semi-orders and a theory of utility discrimination. Econometrica 24: 178–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. McConnell-Ginet, S. (1973). Comparison constructions in English. PhD thesis, University of Rochester.Google Scholar
  37. McNally, L. (2011). The relative role of property type and scale structure in explaining the behavior of gradable adjectives. In R. Nouwen, R. van Rooij, & U. Sauerland (Eds.), Vagueness in communication (pp. 151–168). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  38. Ortony A., Vonduska R., Foss M., Jones L. (1985) Salience, similes, and the asymmetry of similarity. Journal of Memory and Language 24: 569–594CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Peirce, C. (1901). Vague. In J. Baldwin (Ed.), Dictionary of philosophy and psychology (p. 748). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  40. Pinkal M. (1995) Logic and lexicon. Kluwer, DordrechtCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Pogonowski J. (1981) Tolerance spaces with applications in linguistics. Poznan University Press, PoznanGoogle Scholar
  42. Récanati F. (2004) Literal meaning. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  43. Récanati F. (2010) Truth-conditional pragmatics. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Ripley, D. (2011). Contradictions at the borders. In R. Nouwen, R. van Rooij, U. Sauerland, & H. Schmitz (Eds.), Vagueness in communication. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  45. Rosch, E. (1978). Principles of categorization. In E. Rosch & B. Loyd (Eds.), Cognition and categorization (pp. 27–48). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  46. Rotstein C., Winter Y. (2004) Total vs partial adjectives: Scale structure and higher-order modifiers. Natural Language Semantics 12: 259–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Sapir E. (1944) Grading. A study in semantics. Philosophy of Science 11: 93–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Sassoon, G., & Toledo, A. (2013). Absolute and relative adjectives and their comparison classes. Manuscript (in progress) (pp. 1–43).Google Scholar
  49. Schwartz, B. (2010). A note on for phrases and derived scales. ms. McGill University.Google Scholar
  50. Schwarzschild R. (2013) Degrees and segments. Proceedings of SALT 23: 212–238Google Scholar
  51. Smith N. (2008) Vagueness and degrees of truth. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Solt, S. (2011). Notes on the comparison class. In R. Nouwen, R. van Rooij, U. Sauerland, & H. Schmitz (Eds.), Vagueness in communication (pp. 189–206). Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  53. Solt, S. (2012). Comparison to arbitrary standards. In A. Aguilar, A. Chernilovskya, & R. Nouwen (Eds.), Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 16, Cambridge. MIT working papers in linguistics.Google Scholar
  54. Solt S., Gotzner N. (2012) Experimenting with degree. Proceedings of SALT 22: 166–187Google Scholar
  55. Sperber D., Wilson D. (1985) Loose talk. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 86: 153–171Google Scholar
  56. Syrett, K., Bradley, E., Kennedy, C., & Lidz, J. (2006). Shifting standards: Children’s understanding of gradable adjectives. In Proceedings of the inaugural conference on generative approaches to language acquisition-North America (pp. 353–364).Google Scholar
  57. Syrett K., Kennedy C., Lidz J. (2010) Meaning and context in children’s understanding of gradable adjectives. Journal of Semantics 27: 1–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Tversky A. (1977) Features of similarity. Psychological Review 84: 327–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Tversky, A., & Gati, I. (1978). Studies of similarity. In E. Rosch & B.B. Lloyd (Eds.), Cognition and categorization (pp. 79–98). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  60. Unger P. (1975) Ignorance. Clarendon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  61. van Benthem J. (1982) Later than late: On the logical origin of the temporal order. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 63: 193–203Google Scholar
  62. van Benthem J. (1990) The logic of time. Reidel, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  63. van Rooij, R. (2010). Vagueness, tolerance and non-transitive entailment. ms. ILLC, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  64. van Rooij, R. (2011a). Implicit vs explicit comparatives. In P. Égré & N. Klinedinst (Eds.), Vagueness and language use (pp. 25–49). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  65. van Rooij R. (2011b) Measurement and interadjective comparisons. Journal of Semantics 28: 335–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. van Rooij, R. (2011c). Vagueness and linguistics. In G. Ronzitti (Ed.), The vagueness handbook (pp. 123–170). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  67. Wright C. (1975) On the coherence of vague predicates. Synthese 30: 325–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 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 Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Département de linguistique et de traductionUniversité de MontréalMontrealCanada

Personalised recommendations