Vague Determiner Phrases and Distributive Predication
The goal of this paper is to provide the formal basis for a new approach to modelling the application of vague predicates like tall and bald to plural subjects like John and Mary and the men. In other words, we are interested in developing a new logical analysis for natural language sentences like Mary is tall and The men are bald. In the past 30 years, much research has been devoted to finding the proper logical framework to model the application of non-vague predicates to pluralities (cf. ,  among others). Additionally, there has been a lot of work on how to model the application of vague predicates to singular terms (cf. ,  among many others). However, the question of how to apply vague predicates to plural subjects and what complexities may arise in doing so has yet to be examined. This paper is a contribution to filling this gap. In particular, I argue that extending an analysis of predicate vagueness to incorporate pluralities is not immediately straightforward; that is, I show that sentences with vague predicates and certain kinds of plural subjects give rise to additional vague effects that are not present with singular subjects. Extending previous work on both plural predication and vague language, I propose a new logical system (Plural TCS) that models these effects.
KeywordsMass Noun Distributive Predication Vague Predicate Determiner Phrase Plural Subject
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 2.Burnett, H.: The Grammar of Tolerance: On Vagueness, Context-Sensitivity, and the Origin of Scale Structure. PhD Thesis. University of California, Los Angeles (2012)Google Scholar
- 3.Champollion, L.: Parts of a Whole: Distributivity as a Bridge between Aspect and Measurement. PhD Thesis, University of Pennsylvania (2011)Google Scholar
- 5.Cobreros, P., Égré, P., Ripley, D., van Rooij, R.: Tolerant, Classical, Strict. Journal of Philosophical Logic (2011) (forthcoming)Google Scholar
- 6.Dowty, D.: Collective predicates, Distributive predicates, and all. In: Marshall, F. (ed.) Proceedings of the 3rd ESCOL, pp. 97–115. Ohio State University, Ohio (1987)Google Scholar
- 7.Fara, D.: Shifting Sands: An interest-relative theory of vagueness. Philosophical Topics 20, 45–81 (2000)Google Scholar
- 12.Krifka, M.: Approximate Interpretation of Number Words: A Case for Strategic Communication. In: Bouma, G., Krämer, I., Zwarts, J. (eds.) Cognitive Foundations of Interpretation, Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschapen, Amsterdam, pp. 111–126 (2007)Google Scholar
- 17.Malamud, S.: Non-Maximality and Distributivity: A Decision-Theoretic Approach. In: The Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory 16, Tokyo, Japan (2006)Google Scholar
- 18.Montague, R.: The Proper Treatment of Quantification in Ordinary English. In: Thomason, R. (ed.) Formal Philosophy: Selected Papers of Richard Montague, pp. 247–270. Yale University Press, New Haven (1974)Google Scholar
- 19.Pinkal, M.: Logic and Lexicon. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (1995)Google Scholar
- 20.Pogonowski, J.: Tolerance Spaces with Applications in Linguistics. Poznan University Press, Poznan (1981)Google Scholar
- 22.Simons, P.: Parts. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
- 24.Unger, P.: Ignorance. Clarendon Press, Oxford (1975)Google Scholar