Advertisement

Gradability, Vagueness, and Scale Structure: From the Armchair to the Lab

  • Elena Castroviejo
  • Louise McNally
  • Galit W. Sassoon
Chapter
Part of the Language, Cognition, and Mind book series (LCAM, volume 4)

Abstract

In this chapter we present an overview of three main issues that have surrounded the study of gradable properties—vagueness, measurement, and dimensionality—and how they have been pursued from the perspectives of philosophy, linguistics, and psychology. We then provide a brief summary of each chapter in the volume, together with a guide to how the chapters relate to each other thematically.

Keywords

Semantics Properties Adjectives Vagueness Measurement Dimensionality 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Most of the chapters in this volume are based on work presented at the workshop “Gradability, Scale Structure, and Vagueness: Experimental Perspectives,” held at CSIC’s Centro de Ciencias Humanas y Sociales (CCHS) in Madrid, in May 2015; two additional contributions were invited. We thank the members of the Linguistics and Cognitive Science Group (LyCC), led by Violeta Demonte, for their support in the organization of the workshop. We are also grateful to our contributors and to the other participants in the workshop for the lively discussion we had there. We also acknowledge the various sources of funding that helped underwrite the workshop and the preparation of this volume. Castroviejo and Sassoon were partially supported by grant FFI2012-34170, from the Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness (MINECO). Castroviejo also acknowledges grant FFI2015-66732-P (Ministry of Economy, Industry and Competitiveness, and the European Regional Development Fund, FEDER, EU), the IT769-13 Research Group (Basque Government), and UFI11/14 (University of the Basque Country). McNally acknowledges Spanish grants FFI2013-41301-P (MINECO) and FFI2016-76045-P (AEI/MINEICO/FEDER, UE), AGAUR (Catalan government) grant 2014SGR698, an ICREA Foundation Acadèmia award, and the Department of Translation and Language Sciences at Universitat Pompeu Fabra. Sassoon acknowledges the support of the German-Israeli Foundation for Scientific Research and Development (GIF). Thanks also to our abstract and manuscript reviewers, to Helen van der Stelt and Jolanda Voogd at Springer, and especially to Chungmin Lee for his initial encouragement to produce this volume.

References

  1. Alxatib, S., & Pelletier, F. J. (2011). The psychology of vagueness: Borderline cases and contradictions. Mind and Language, 26(3), 287–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson, C., & Morzycki, M. (2015). Degrees as kinds. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 33(3), 791–828.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aparicio, H., Xiang, M., & Kennedy, C. (2015). Processing gradable adjectives in context: A visual world study. In S. D’Antonio, M. Moroney, & C. Little (Eds.), Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory (Vol. 25, pp. 413–432).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Aparicio, H., Xiang, M., & Kennedy, C. (2018). Informativity and grammar in referencial effects of contrast involving adjectivally modified NPs. In E. Castroviejo, L. McNally, & G. W. Sassoon (Eds.), Gradability, vagueness, and scale structure: Experimental perspectives. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  5. Bale, A. (2008). A universal scale of comparison. Linguistics and Philosophy, 31(1), 1–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barner, D., & Snedeker, J. (2008). Compositionality and statistics in adjective acquisition: 4-year-olds interpret tall and short based on the size distributions of novel noun referents. Child Development, 79(3), 594–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Barsalou, L. W. (1993). Flexibility, structure, and linguistic vagary in concepts: Manifestations of a compositional system of perceptual symbols. In A. F. Collins, S. E. Gathercole, M. A. Conway, & P. E. Morris (Eds.), Theories of memory (pp. 29–101). East Sussex, UK: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  8. Bartsch, R. (1984). The structure of word meanings: Polysemy, metaphor, metonymy. In F. Landman & F. Veltman (Eds.), Varieties of formal semantics (pp. 25–54). Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
  9. Bartsch, R. (1986). Context-dependent interpretations of lexical items. In J. Groenendijk, D. de Jongh, & M. Stokhof (Eds.), Foundations of pragmatics and lexical semantics, GRASS 7 (pp. 1–26). Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
  10. Bartsch, R., & Vennemann, T. (1972). The grammar of relative adjectives and comparison. Linguistische Berichte, 20, 19–32.Google Scholar
  11. Beck, S., Krasikova, S., Fleischer, D., Gergel, R., Hofstetter, S., Savelsberg, C., et al. (2009). Crosslinguistic variation in comparison constructions. Linguistic Variation Yearbook, 9(1), 1–66.Google Scholar
  12. Beck, S., Oda, T., & Sugisaki, K. (2004). Parametric variation in the semantics of comparison: Japanese versus English. Journal of East Asian Linguistics, 13(4), 289–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Beltrama, A. (2016). Bridging the gap: Intensifiers between semantic and social meaning. Dissertation, University of Chicago.Google Scholar
  14. Beltrama, A. (2018a). Totally between discourse and subjectivity: Exploring the pragmatic side of intensification. Journal of Semantics 35(2), 219–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Beltrama, A. (2018b). Intensification, gradability and social perception: The case of totally. In E. Castroviejo, L. McNally, & G. W. Sassoon (Eds.), Gradability, vagueness, and scale structure: Experimental perspectives. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  16. Beltrama, A., & Bochnak, M. (2015). Intensification without degrees cross-linguistically. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 33(3), 843–879.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Beltrama, A., & Staum Casasanto, L. (2017). Totally tall sounds totally younger: Intensification at the socio-semantics interface. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 21(2), 154–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Beltrama, A., & Xiang, M. (2012). Is good better than excellent? An experimental investigation on scalar implicatures and gradable adjectives. In Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung (Vol. 17, pp. 81–98).Google Scholar
  19. van Benthem, J. (1982). Later than late: On the logical origin of the temporal order. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 63, 193–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Bierwisch, M. (1989). The semantics of gradation. In M. Bierwisch & E. Lang (Eds.), Dimensional adjectives (pp. 71–261). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Bobaljik, J. D. (2012). Universals in comparative morphology: Suppletion, superlatives, and the structure of words. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  22. Bochnak, M. (2013a). Cross-linguistic variation in the semantics of comparatives. Dissertation, University of Chicago.Google Scholar
  23. Bochnak, M. (2013b). Two sources of scalarity within the verb phrase. In B. Arsenijević, B. Gehrke, & R. Marín, (Eds.), Studies in the composition and decomposition of event predicates (pp. 99–123). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Bogal-Allbritten, E. (2012). Slightly coerced: Processing evidence for adjectival coercion by minimizers. In Proceedings from the Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society (Vol. 48.1, pp. 77–92). Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
  25. Bolinger, D. (1972). Degree words. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
  26. Büring, D. (2007). Cross-polar nomalies. In T. Friedman & M. Gibson (Eds.), Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory (Vol. 17, pp. 37–52). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Burnett, H. (2016). Gradability in natural language: Logical and grammatical foundations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Bylinina, L. (2014). The grammar of standards: Judge-dependence, purpose-relativity, and comparison classes in degree constructions. Dissertation, Utrecht University.Google Scholar
  29. Cappelletti, M., Fregni, F., Shapiro, K., Pascual-Leone, A., & Caramazza, A. (2008). Processing nouns and verbs in the left frontal cortex: A transcranial magnetic stimulation study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 20(4), 707–720.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Cobreros, P. (2011a). Paraconsistent vagueness: A positive argument. Synthese, 183(2), 211–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Cobreros, P. (2011b). Supervaluationism and classical logic. In R. Nouwen, R. van Rooij, H.-C. Schmitz, & U. Sauerland (Eds.), Vagueness in communication. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Vol. 6517, pp. 51–63). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Cobreros, P., Égré, P., Ripley, D., & van Rooij, R. (2012). Tolerance and mixed consequence in the supervaluationist setting. Studia Logica, 100(4), 855–877.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Constantinescu, C. (2011). Gradability in the nominal domain. Dissertation, Leiden University.Google Scholar
  34. Cresswell, M. (1976). The semantics of degree. In B. Partee (Ed.), Montague Grammar (pp. 261–292). New York: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Cummins, C. (2018). Modified fractions, granularity and scale structure. In E. Castroviejo, L. McNally, & G. W. Sassoon (Eds.), Gradability, vagueness, and scale structure: Experimental perspectives. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  36. Cummins, C., Sauerland, U., & Solt, S. (2012). Granularity and scalar implicature in numerical expressions. Linguistics and Philosophy, 35(2), 135–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Deschamps, I., Agmon, G., Lewenstein, Y., & Grodzinsky, Y. (2015). The processing of polar quantifiers, and numerosity perception. Cognition, 143(2), 115–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Devos, F. (1995). Still fuzzy after all these years. A linguistic evaluation of the fuzzy set approach to semantic vagueness. Quaderni di Semantica, 16(31–32), 47–82.Google Scholar
  39. Devos, F. (2003). Semantic vagueness and lexical polyvalence. Studia Linguistica, 57(3), 121–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 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(2), 211–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Égré, P., & Zehr, J. (2018). Are gaps preferred to gluts? A closer look at borderline contradictions. In E. Castroviejo, L. McNally, & G. W. Sassoon (Eds.), Gradability, vagueness, and scale structure: Experimental perspectives. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  42. Égré, P., De Gardelle, V., & Ripley, D. (2013). Vagueness and order effects in color categorization. Journal of Logic, Language and Information, 22(4), 391–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Fara, D. G. (2000). Shifting sands: An interest-relative theory of vagueness. Philosophical Topics, 28(1), 45–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Fine, K. (1975). Vagueness, truth and logic. Synthese, 30(3), 265–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Fleischhauer, J. (2016). Degree gradation of verbs. Düsseldorf: Düsseldorf University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Frazier, L., Clifton, C., & Stolterfoht, B. (2008). Scale structure: Processing minimum standard and maximum standard scalar adjectives. Cognition, 106(1), 299–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Grant, M. A. (2013). The parsing and interpretation of comparatives: More than meets the eye. Dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
  48. Grosu, A., & Landman, F. (1998). Strange relatives of the third kind. Natural Language Semantics, 6(2), 125–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Hampton, J. A. (1979). Polymorphous concepts in semantic memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18(4), 441–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Hampton, J. A. (1998). Similarity-based categorization and fuzziness of natural categories. Cognition, 65(2), 137–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Hampton, J. A. (2007). Typicality, graded membership, and vagueness. Cognitive Science, 31(3), 355–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Hansen, N., & Chemla, E. (2017). Color adjectives, standards, and thresholds: An experimental investigation. Linguistics and Philosophy, 40(3), 239–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Hay, J., Kennedy, C., & Levin, B. (1999). Scalar structure underlies telicity in degree achievements. In T. Matthews & D. Strolovitch (Eds.), Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory (Vol. 9, pp. 127–144). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Heim, I. (1985). Notes on comparatives and related matters. Unpublished manuscript, University of Texas.Google Scholar
  55. Heim, I. (2008). Decomposing antonyms. In Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung (Vol. 12, pp. 212–225).Google Scholar
  56. Hyde, D. (1997). From heaps and gaps to heaps of gluts. Mind, 106(424), 641–660.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Kamp, H. (2013). The paradox of the heap. In K. von Heusinger & A. G. B. Ter Meulen (Eds.), Meaning and the dynamics of interpretation. Selected writings of Hans Kamp (pp. 263–319). Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
  58. Kamp, H., & Partee, B. (1995). Prototype theory and compositionality. Cognition, 57(2), 129–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Keefe, R. (2000). Theories of vagueness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  60. Kennedy, C. (1999). Projecting the adjective: The syntax and semantics of gradability and comparison. New York: Garland Press.Google Scholar
  61. Kennedy, C. (2007a). Modes of comparison. In Proceedings from the Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society (Vol. 43, pp. 141–165). Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
  62. Kennedy, C. (2007b). Vagueness and grammar: The semantics of relative and absolute gradable adjectives. Linguistics and Philosophy, 30(1), 1–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Kennedy, C. (2012). The composition of incremental change. In V. Demonte & L. McNally (Eds.), Telicity, change, state: A cross-categorial view of event structure (pp. 103–121). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  64. Kennedy, C. (2013). Two sources of subjectivity: Qualitative assessment and dimensional uncertainty. Inquiry, 56(2–3), 258–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Kennedy, C., & Levin, B. (2008). Measure 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
  66. Kennedy, C., & McNally, L. (2005). Scale structure, degree modification, and the semantics of gradable predicates. Language, 81(2), 345–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Klein, E. (1980). A semantics for positive and comparative adjectives. Linguistics and Philosophy, 4(1), 1–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Krifka, M. (2002). Be brief and vague! And how Bidirectional Optimality Theory allows for verbosity and precision. In D. Restle & D. Zaefferer (Eds.), Sounds and systems: Studies in structure and change: A Festschrift for Theo Vennemann (pp. 439–458). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  69. Lasersohn, P. (1999). Pragmatic halos. Language, 75(3), 522–551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Lasersohn, P. (2005). Context dependence, disagreement, and predicates of personal taste. Linguistics and Philosophy, 28(6), 643–686.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Liao, S.-Y., & Meskin, A. (2017). Aesthetic adjectives: Experimental semantics and context-sensitivity. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 94(2), 371–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Liao, S.-Y., McNally, L., & Meskin, A. (2016). Aesthetic adjectives lack uniform behavior. Inquiry, 59(6), 618–631.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Lidz, J., Halberda, J., Pietroski, P., & Hunter, T. (2011). Interface transparency and the psychosemantics of most. Natural Language Semantics, 6(3), 227–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Matushansky, O. (2002). A beauty of a construction. In L. Mikkelsen & C. Potts (Eds.), Proceedings of the 21st West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (pp. 264–277), Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
  75. McCloskey, M. E., & Glucksberg, S. (1978). Natural categories: Well defined or fuzzy sets? Memory and Cognition, 6(4), 462–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. McNabb, Y. (2012). The syntax and semantics of degree modification. Dissertation, University of Chicago.Google Scholar
  77. 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, & H.-C. Schmitz (Eds.), Vagueness in communication. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Vol. 6517, pp. 151–168). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. McNally, L. (2017). Scalar alternatives and scalar inference involving adjectives: A comment on van Tiel, et al. 2016. In J. Ostrove, R. Kramer, & J. Sabbagh (Eds.), Asking the right questions: Essays in honor of Sandra Chung (pp. 17–28). https://escholarship.org/uc/item/8255v8sc.
  79. McNally, L., & Stojanovic, I. (2017). Aesthetic adjectives. In J. Young (Ed.), The semantics of aesthetic judgments (pp. 17–37). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Moltmann, F. (2004). Properties and kinds of tropes: New linguistic facts and old philosophical insights. Mind, 113(449), 1–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Moltmann, F. (2007). Events, tropes, and truthmaking. Philosophical Studies, 134(3), 363–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Moltmann, F. (2009). Degree structure as trope structure: A trope-based analysis of positive and comparative adjectives. Linguistics and Philosophy, 32(1), 51–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Morzycki, M. (2009). Degree modification of gradable nouns: Size adjectives and adnominal degree morphemes. Natural Language Semantics, 17(2), 175–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Morzycki, M. (2011). Metalinguistic comparison in an alternative semantics for imprecision. Natural Language Semantics, 19(1), 39–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Nouwen, R., & Dotlačil, J. (2018). Cumulative comparison: Experimental evidence for degree cumulation. In E. Castroviejo, L. McNally, & G. W. Sassoon (Eds.), Gradability, vagueness, and scale structure: Experimental perspectives. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  86. O’Connor, E. (2015). Comparative illusions at the syntax-semantics interface. Dissertation, University of Southern California.Google Scholar
  87. O’Connor, E., Pancheva, R., & Kaiser, E. (2012). Evidence for online repair of Escher sentences. In Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung (Vol. 17, pp. 363–380).Google Scholar
  88. Osherson, D. N., & Smith, E. E. (1981). On the adequacy of prototype theory as a theory of concepts. Cognition, 9(1), 35–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Pancheva, R., & Tomaszewicz, B. (2011). Experimental evidence for the syntax of phrasal comparatives in Polish (Vol. 17.1, pp. 185–194). University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics.Google Scholar
  90. Peirce, C. S. (1910). The Charles S. Peirce papers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  91. Piñón, C. (2008). Aspectual composition with degrees. In L. McNally & C. Kennedy (Eds.), Adjectives and adverbs: Syntax, semantics and discourse (pp. 183–219). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  92. Raffman, D. (1994). Vagueness without paradox. The Philosophical Review, 103(1), 41–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Raffman, D. (2005). How to understand contextualism about vagueness: Reply to Stanley. Analysis, 65(3), 244–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Rappaport-Hovav, M. (2014). Building scalar changes. In A. Alexiadou, H. Borer, & F. Schäfer, (Eds.), The syntax of roots and the roots of syntax (pp. 259–281). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Ripley, D. (2011). Contradictions at the borders. In R. Nouwen, R. van Rooij, U. Sauerland, & H.-C. Schmitz (Eds.), Vagueness in communication. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Vol. 6517, pp. 169–188). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  96. Rips, L. J., & Turnbull, W. (1980). How big is big? Relative and absolute properties in memory. Cognition, 8(2), 145–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. van Rooij, R. (2011). Vagueness and linguistics. In G. Ronzitti (Ed.), Vagueness: A guide (pp. 123–170). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  98. Rosch, E., & Mervis, C. B. (1975). Family resemblances: Studies in the internal structure of categories. Cognitive Psychology, 7(4), 573–605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Rotstein, C., & Winter, Y. (2004). Total adjectives versus partial adjectives: Scale structure and higher-order modifiers. Natural Language Semantics, 12(3), 259–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Sassoon, G. W. (2012a). The double nature of negative antonymy. In A. Aguilar-Guevara, A. Chernilovskaya, & R. Nouwen (Eds.), Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung (Vol. 16.2, MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, pp. 543–556). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  101. Sassoon, G. W. (2012b). A slightly modified economy principle: Stable properties have non-stable standards. In Proceedings of the Israel Association of Theoretical Linguistics (IATL) (Vol. 27, MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, pp. 163–181). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  102. Sassoon, G. W. (2013a). A typology of multidimensional adjectives. Journal of Semantics, 30(3), 335–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Sassoon, G. W. (2013b). Vagueness, gradability and typicality: The interpretation of adjectives and nouns. Leiden: Brill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Sassoon, G. W. (2017). Comparisons of nominal degrees. Language, 93(1), 153–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Sassoon, G. W., & Fadlon, J. (2017). The role of dimensions in classification under predicates predicts their status in degree constructions. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 2(1), 42, 1–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Sassoon, G. W., & Toledo, A. (2011). Absolute and relative adjectives and their comparison classes. Unpublished manuscript, University of Amsterdam and Utrecht University.Google Scholar
  107. Sassoon, G. W., Meir, N., Fadlon, J., Anaki, D., & Schumacher, P. (t.a.). The acceptability, processing and neural signature of nominal gradability. Unpublished manuscript, Bar Ilan University, The Hebrew University, Jerusalem, and University of Cologne.Google Scholar
  108. Schmidt, L. A., Goodman, N. D., Barner, D., & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2009). How tall is tall? Compositionality, statistics, and gradable adjectives. In Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (Vol. 31, pp. 2759–2764).Google Scholar
  109. Schumacher, P. B., Brandt, P., & Weiland-Breckle, H. (2018). Online processing of real and fake: The cost of being too strong. In E. Castroviejo, L. McNally, & G. W. Sassoon (Eds.), Gradability, vagueness, and scale structure: Experimental perspectives. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  110. Scontras, G. (2014). The semantics of measurement. Dissertation, Harvard University.Google Scholar
  111. Scontras, G., Graff, P., & Goodman, N. D. (2012). Comparing pluralities. Cognition, 123(1), 190–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. Sedivy, J. C. (2003). Pragmatic versus form-based accounts of referential contrast: Evidence for effects of informativity expectations. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 32(1), 3–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. Sedivy, J. C. (2005). Evaluating explanations for referential context effects: Evidence for Gricean mechanisms in online language interpretation. In J. Trueswell & M. Tanenhaus (Eds.), Approaches to studying world-situated language use: Bridging the language-as-product and language-as-action traditions (pp. 345–364). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  114. Sedivy, J. C., Tanenhaus, M. K., Chambers, C. G., & Carlson, G. N. (1999). Achieving incremental semantic interpretation through contextual representation. Cognition, 71(2), 109–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. Serchuk, P., Hargreaves, I., & Zach, R. (2011). Vagueness, logic and use: Four experimental studies on vagueness. Mind and Language, 26(5), 540–573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. Seuren, P. (1973). The comparative. In F. Kiefer & N. Ruwet (Eds.), Generative Grammar in Europe (pp. 528–564). Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. Shapiro, S. (2006). Vagueness in context. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  118. Smith, L., Cooney, N. J., & McCord, C. (1986). What is “high”? The development of reference points for “high” and “low”. Child Development, 57, 583–602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. Smith, L., Rattermann, M. J., & Sera, M. (1988). “Higher” and “lower“; Comparative and categorical interpretations by children. Cognitive Development, 6, 131–145.Google Scholar
  120. Soames, S. (1999). Understanding truth. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. Solt, S. (2011). How many Mosts? In Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung (Vol. 15, pp. 565–579).Google Scholar
  122. Solt, S. (2016). On measurement and quantification: The case of most and more than half. Language, 92(1), 65–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  123. Solt, S. (2018). Multidimensionality, subjectivity and scales: Experimental evidence. In E. Castroviejo, L. McNally, & G. W. Sassoon (Eds.), Gradability, vagueness, and scale structure: Experimental perspectives. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  124. Solt, S., & Gotzner, N. (2012). Who here is tall? Comparison classes, standards and scales. In Pre-Proceedings of the International Conference Linguistic Evidence 2012 (pp. 79–83). Tübingen: Eberhard Karls Universität Tübingen.Google Scholar
  125. Stanley, J. (2003). Context, interest relativity and the Sorites. Analysis, 63(280), 269–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  126. von Stechow, A. (1984). Comparing semantic theories of comparison. Journal of Semantics, 3(1), 1–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  127. Syrett, K. (2007). Learning about the structure of scales: Adverbial modification and the acquisition of the semantics of gradable adjectives. Dissertation, Northwestern University.Google Scholar
  128. Syrett, K., & Lidz, J. (2010). 30-month-olds use the distribution and meaning of adverbs to interpret novel adjectives. Language Learning and Development, 6(4), 258–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  129. Syrett, K., Kennedy, C., & Lidz, J. (2010). Meaning and context in children’s understanding of gradable adjectives. Journal of Semantics, 27(1), 1–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  130. van Tiel, B., van Miltenburg, E., Zevakhina, N., & Geurts, B. (2016). Scalar diversity. Journal of Semantics, 33(1), 137–175.Google Scholar
  131. Tribushinina, E., & Gillis, S. (2012). The acquisition of scalar structures: Production of adjectives and degree markers by Dutch-speaking children and their caregivers. Linguistics, 50(2), 241–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  132. Tucker, D., Tomaszewicz, B., & Wellwood, A. (2018). Decomposition and processing of negative adjectival comparatives. In E. Castroviejo, L. McNally, & G. W. Sassoon (Eds.), Gradability, vagueness, and scale structure: Experimental perspectives. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  133. Umbach, C. (2016). Evaluative propositions and subjective judgments. In C. Meier & J. van Wijnbergen-Huitink (Eds.), Subjective meaning: Alternatives to relativism (pp. 127–168). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
  134. Vanden Wyngaerd, G. (2001). Measuring events. Language, 77(1), 61–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  135. Verheyen, S., & Storms, G. (2018). Education as a source of vagueness in criteria and degree. In E. Castroviejo, L. McNally, & G. W. Sassoon (Eds.), Gradability, vagueness, and scale structure: Experimental perspectives. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  136. Verheyen, S., Hampton, J. A., & Storms, G. (2010). A probabilistic threshold model: Analyzing semantic categorization data with the Rasch model. Acta Psychologica, 135(2), 216–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  137. Verheyen, S., Dewil, S., & Égré, P. (2016). Subjective meaning in gradable adjectives: The case of ‘tall’ and ‘heavy’. Submitted.Google Scholar
  138. de Vries, H. (2018). Gradable nouns as concepts without prototypes. In E. Castroviejo, L. McNally, & G. W. Sassoon (Eds.), Gradability, vagueness, and scale structure: Experimental perspectives. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  139. Wellwood, A. (2014). Measuring predicates. Dissertation, University of Maryland.Google Scholar
  140. Wellwood, A., Pancheva, R., Hacquard, V., Fults, S., & Phillips, C. (2009). The role of event comparison in comparative illusions. Poster Presented at the 22nd Annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing, Davis, CA.Google Scholar
  141. Wellwood, A., Pancheva, R., Hacquard, V., & Phillips, C. (2017). The anatomy of a comparative illusion. Submitted.Google Scholar
  142. Williamson, T. (1994). Vagueness. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Elena Castroviejo
    • 1
    • 2
  • Louise McNally
    • 3
  • Galit W. Sassoon
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Linguistics and Basque StudiesUniversity of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU)Vitoria-GasteizSpain
  2. 2.Ikerbasque, Basque Foundation for ScienceBilbaoSpain
  3. 3.Department of Translation and Language SciencesUniversitat Pompeu FabraBarcelonaSpain
  4. 4.Department of English Literature and LinguisticsBar Ilan UniversityRamat GanIsrael

Personalised recommendations