Advertisement

A Non-factualist Semantics for Attributions of Comparative Value

  • Andrés Soria RuizEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11456)

Abstract

This paper combines elements from literature on gradability and meta-ethics to offer a non-factualist, hyperplan-based semantics for evaluative adjectives, more specifically for comparative uses of those adjectives. Broadly non-factualist proposals about evaluative language understand value attributions in binary terms, that is, in terms of the expression, on the part of the speaker, of a favorable or unfavorable attitude towards the object under evaluation. But it is not obvious how to extend non-factualism to cover comparative uses of evaluative adjectives, and my purpose is to amend this.

References

  1. 1.
    Bar-On, D., Chrisman, M.: Ethical neo-expressivism. Oxford Stud. Metaethics 4, 133–165 (2009)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Benthem, J.V.: Later than late: on the logical origin of the temporal order. Pac. Philos. Q. 63(2), 193–203 (1982). http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=12379460
  3. 3.
    Bierwisch, M.: The semantics of gradation. In: Bierwisch, M., Lang, E. (eds.) Dimensional Adjectives, pp. 71–261. Springer, Heidelberg (1989). http://www.zas.gwz-berlin.de/fileadmin/mitarbeiter/bierwisch/4_Bierwisch_1989_Gradation.pdfCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Blackburn, S.: Attitudes and contents. Ethics 98(3), 501 (1988). https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/292968CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bylinina, L.: Judge-dependence in degree constructions. J. Semant. 34(2), 291–331 (2016)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Camp, E.: Metaethical expressivism. In: MacPherson, T., Plunkett, D. (eds.) The Routledge Handbook of Metaethics, pp. 87–101. Routledge, Abingdon (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cepollaro, B., Stojanovic, I.: Hybrid evaluatives: in defense of a presuppositional account. Grazer Philosophische Studien 93(3), 458–488 (2016). http://booksandjournals.brillonline.com/content/journals/10.1163/18756735-09303007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dreier, J.: Internalism and speaker relativism. Ethics 101(1), 6–26 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Egan, A.: Disputing about taste. In: Warfield, T., Feldman, R. (eds.) Disagreement, pp. 247–286. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Egan, A.: Relativist dispositional theories of value. South. J. Philos. 50(4), 557–582 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Egan, A.: There’s something funny about comedy: a case study in faultless disagreement. Erkenntnis 79(1), 73–100 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Égré, P., Zehr, J.: Are gaps preferred to gluts? A closer look at borderline contradictions. In: Castroviejo, E., McNally, L., Weidman Sassoon, G. (eds.) The Semantics of Gradability, Vagueness, and Scale Structure. LCM, vol. 4, pp. 25–58. Springer, Cham (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-77791-7_2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Faroldi, F.L.G., Soria Ruiz, A.: The scale structure of moral adjectives. Studia Semiotyczne 31(2), 161–178 (2017)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Frapolli, M.J., Villanueva Fernandez, N.: Minimal expressivism. Dialectica 66(4), 471–487 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gibbard, A.: An expressivistic theory of normative discourse. Ethics 96(3), 472–485 (1986). http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/pdfplus/10.1086/292770, http://www.jstor.org/stable/2381066CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gibbard, A.: Wise Choices, Apt Feelings. Clarendon Press, Oxford University Press (1990)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gibbard, A.: Thinking How to Live. Harvard University Press, Cambridge (2003)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hare, R.M.: The Language of Morals. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1952)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Heim, I.: On the projection problem for presuppositions. In: Portner, P., Partee, B. (eds.) Formal Semantics: The Essential Readings, pp. 249–260. Blackwell Publishing Ltd/Inc., Hoboken (2002)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kennedy, C.: Vagueness and grammar: the semantics of relative and absolute gradable adjectives. Linguist. Philos. 30(1), 1–45 (2007). http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10988-006-9008-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kennedy, C.: Two sources of subjectivity: qualitative assessment and dimensional uncertainty. Inquiry 56(2–3), 258–277 (2013). http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0020174X.2013.784483CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Klein, E.: A semantics for positive and comparative adjectives. Linguist. Philos. 4(1), 1–45 (1980). http://www.springerlink.com/index/P01U10Q4N62NW277.pdfCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lasersohn, P.: Context dependence, disagreement, and predicates of personal taste. Linguist. Philos. 28(6), 643–686 (2005). http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10988-005-0596-xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lewis, D.: Attitudes de dicto and de se. Philos. Rev. 88(4), 513–543 (1979)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    MacFarlane, J.: Assessment Sensitivity: Relative Truth and Its Applications. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Marques, T.: Disagreeing in context. Front. Psychol. 6, 257 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    McNally, L., Stojanovic, I.: Aesthetic adjectives. In: Young, J. (ed.) The Semantics of Aesthetic Judgment. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2016). http://philpapers.org/rec/MCNAA-3Google Scholar
  28. 28.
  29. 29.
    Ridge, M.: Disagreement. Philos. Phenomenol. Res. 86(1), 41–63 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Sassoon, G.W.: A typology of multidimensional adjectives. J. Semant. 30(3), 335–380 (2013). http://jos.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2012/08/03/jos.ffs012.shortCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
  32. 32.
    Silk, A.: Discourse Contextualism: A Framework for Contextualist Semantics and Pragmatics. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Solt, S.: Multidimensionality, subjectivity and scales: experimental evidence. In: Castroviejo, E., McNally, L., Weidman Sassoon, G. (eds.) The Semantics of Gradability, Vagueness, and Scale Structure. LCM, vol. 4, pp. 59–91. Springer, Cham (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-77791-7_3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Stalnaker, R.: Assertion. In: Portner, P., Partee, B. (eds.) Formal Semantics: The Essential Readings, pp. 147–161. Blackwell Publishing Ltd/Inc., Hoboken (2002)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Stephenson, T.: Judge dependence, epistemic modals, and predicates of personal taste. Linguist. Philos. 30(4), 487–525 (2007). http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10988-008-9023-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Stevenson, C.L.: The emotive meaning of ethical terms. Mind 46(181), 14–31 (1937). http://www.jstor.org/stable/2250027CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Stevenson, C.L.: Facts and Values: Studies in Ethical Analysis (1963)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Stojanovic, I.: Disagreements about Taste vs. Disagreements About Moral Issues (2017)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
  40. 40.
    Yalcin, S.: Bayesian expressivism. Proc. Aristotelian Soc. 112(2), 123–160 (2012). https://academic.oup.com/aristotelian/article-lookup/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9264.2012.00329.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Yalcin, S.: Expressivism by force. In: Fogal, D., Harris, D.W., Moss, M. (eds.) New Work on Speech Acts. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2017)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute Jean Nicod, ENS-PSL-CNRSParisFrance

Personalised recommendations