Skip to main content

Gradable Nouns as Concepts Without Prototypes

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Semantics of Gradability, Vagueness, and Scale Structure

Part of the book series: Language, Cognition, and Mind ((LCAM,volume 4))

Abstract

Kamp and Partee’s (Cognition, 57:129–191, 1995) typology of concepts combines features from a classical theory of concepts with features from Prototype Theory. They argue for the existence of a class of concepts that have graded membership but lack prototypes; a crucial characteristic of such concepts (like TALL) is that they involve properties without an upper bound (there is no limit to how tall something can be, for example). In this paper, I explore the links between Kamp and Partee’s typology and the linguistic domain of nominal gradability. I claim that the class of nouns that are linguistically gradable (i.e., denote a predicate with a degree argument, as diagnosed by various monotonicity-based tests) corresponds precisely to those concepts that have graded membership but lack a prototype. Based on several experiments, I show that the concepts expressed by such nouns are primarily associated with unbounded properties, while the concepts expressed by non-gradable nouns are associated with bounded or all-or-nothing properties. For example, while participants strongly associate both student and nerd with intelligence, they judge that nerdiness increases with intelligence (with no upper limit) while qualifying as a typical student simply requires some above-standard degree of intelligence.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 79.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Peter Gärdenfors (e.g. Gärdenfors 2004) argues that prototypicality is represented as centrality in a conceptual space. Given that a conceptual space represents similarity, the center of such a space has the property of bearing simultaneously the most similarity to all other points in the space, and the least similarity to all points outside it (cf. Rosch and Mervis 1975 for experimental results that suggest the same). But in the case of a limitless property (like tallness), there is no such point—for any given instantiation of TALL, for example, there is always another one that bears even less resemblance to the contrasting concept of SHORT (put plainly: something or someone may always be taller). So the conclusion that TALL cannot have a prototype follows also in Gärdenfors’s approach.

  2. 2.

    The idea that relative adjectives have no minimal value may seem strange if we consider adjectives like tall, old, cheap or fast; after all, we have clear mathematical notions of zero height, zero age or zero speed. However, zero does not appear to be part of the linguistic set of degrees corresponding to these adjectives: for example, I find statements like # My house is extremely slow or # I am going faster than that house to be quite anomalous. Put differently, having a speed, height, or age of absolutely zero is the same as having no speed, height or age at all (Lehrer 1985). But for any speed, height or age greater than zero—even for a tiny value—we will always be able to imagine someone or something who is, for example, only half that age or height or moves even slower. In other words, the linguistic scale of ‘tallness’ asymptotically approaches zero (so to speak) and, hence, is usually considered unbounded on both sides.

  3. 3.

    (Multi)dimensionality does seem to play a role in nominal gradability in a different way: in a series of papers, Galit Weidman Sassoon argues that multidimensional predicates fall into different classes depending on the way the values of its dimensions are integrated, and that this classification correlates with a predicate’s ability to appear in various degree constructions (e.g. Sassoon 2016; Sassoon and Fadlon 2017).

  4. 4.

    Armstrong et al. use the term ‘exemplariness’, but since this might be misconstrued as referring to Exemplar Theory—a competitor to Prototype Theory—I will use a more neutral term.

  5. 5.

    This question is reminiscent of the one explored in Barsalou (1985). Barsalou notes that the prototype for goal-oriented concepts like DIET FOOD seems to involve non-realistic values: the best example of a DIET FOOD is a product that contains zero calories, despite the fact that zero-calorie food does not exist in real life. Thus, a concept’s prototype can have properties that none of its instances have. Barsalou’s ideal-based approach to prototypes isn’t fully applicable here because I am discussing [−P] concepts, but at least it shows that conceptual structure is not fully determined by the properties of actually encountered instances.

  6. 6.

    Participants could provide their e-mail addresses in order to compete for the gift certificates; there was an overlap of 9 addresses between the first and second questionnaires, in addition to 6 participants (in total) who did not provide an address.

References

  • Abney, S. (1987). The English noun phrase in its sentential aspect. Dissertation, MIT.

    Google Scholar 

  • Armstrong, S., Gleitman, L., & Gleitman, H. (1983). What some concepts might not be. Cognition, 13(3): 263–408.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ashcraft, M. (1978). Property norms for typical and atypical items from 17 categories: A description and discussion. Memory & Cognition, 6(3), 227–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barsalou, L. (1985). Ideals, central tendency, and frequency of instantiation as determinants of graded structure in categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 11(4), 629–654.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barsalou, L. (1987). The instability of graded structure: implications for the nature of concepts. In U. Neisser (Ed.), Concepts and conceptual development: Ecological and intellectual factors in categorization (pp. 101–140). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bolinger, D. (1972). Degree words. The Hague: Mouton.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Burnett, H. (2014). A delineation solution to the puzzle of absolute adjectives. Linguistics and Philosophy, 37(1), 1–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cresswell, M. (1976). The semantics of degree. In B. Partee (Ed.), Montague Grammar. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cruse, D. A. (1980). Antonyms and gradable complementaries. In D. Kastovsky (Ed.), Perspektiven der lexikalischen Semantik (pp. 14–25). Bonn: Bouvier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doetjes, J. (1997). Quantifiers and selection: On the distribution of quantifiying expressions in French, Dutch and English. Dissertation, Leiden University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fodor, J., & Lepore, E. (1996). The red herring and the pet fish: Why concepts still can’t be prototypes. Cognition, 58(2), 253–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gärdenfors, P. (2004). Conceptual spaces as a framework for knowledge representation. Mind and Matter, 2(2), 9–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hampton, J., & Jonsson, M. (2012). Typicality and compositionality: The logic of combining vague concepts. In M. Werning, W. Hinzen, & E. Machery (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of compositionality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heim, I. (2000). Degree operators and scope. In B. Jackson & T. Matthews (Eds.), Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory (Vol. 10, pp. 40–64). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kamp, H., & Partee, B. (1995). Prototype theory and compositionality. Cognition, 57(2), 129–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Katz, G. (2005). Attitudes towards degrees. In Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung (Vol. 9, pp. 183–196).

    Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy, C. (1997). Projecting the adjective: The syntax and semantics of gradability and comparison. Dissertation, University of California, Santa Cruz.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy, C. (2007). Vagueness and grammar: The semantics of relative and absolute gradable adjectives. Linguistics and Philosophy, 30(1), 1–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy, C., & McNally, L. (2005). Scale structure, degree modification, and the semantics of gradable predicates. Language, 81(2), 345–381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lassiter, D., & Goodman, N. (2013). Context, scale structure, and statistics in the interpretation of positive-form adjectives. In T. Snider (Ed.), Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory (Vol. 23, pp. 587–610).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laurence, S., & Margolis, E. (1999). Concepts and cognitive science. In E. Margolis & S. Laurence (Eds.), Concepts: Core readings. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lehrer, A. (1985). Markedness and antonymy. Journal of Linguistics, 21(2), 397–429.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, D. (1979). Scorekeeping in a language game. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 8(1), 339–359.

    Google Scholar 

  • Malt, B., & Smith, E. (1982). The role of familiarity in determining typicality. Memory & Cognition, 10(1), 69–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCawley, J. (1988). The syntactic phenomena of English. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morzycki, M. (2009). Degree modification of gradable nouns: Size adjectives and adnominal degree morphemes. Natural Language Semantics, 17(2), 175–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nouwen, R. (2009). Monotone amazement. In Proceedings of Amsterdam Colloquium (Vol. 15, pp. 167–172).

    Google Scholar 

  • Osherson, D., & Smith, E. (1981). On the adequacy of prototype theory as a theory of concepts. Cognition, 9(1), 35–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prinz, J. (2012). Regaining composure: A defense of prototype compositionality. In M. Werning, W. Hinzen, & E. Machery (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of compositionality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Rooij, R. (2011). Vagueness and linguistics. In G. Ronzitti (Ed.), The vagueness handbook. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosch, E. (1973). On the internal structure of perceptual and semantic categories. In T. Moore (Ed.), Cognitive development and the acquisition of language. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosch, E., & Mervis, C. (1975). Family resemblances: Studies in the internal structure of categories. Cognitive Psychology, 7(4), 573–605.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rotstein, C., & Winter, Y. (2004). Total adjectives vs. partial adjectives: Scale structure and higher-order modifiers. Natural Language Semantics, 12(3), 259–288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sassoon, G. W. (2007). Vagueness, gradability and typicality: A comprehensive semantic analysis. Dissertation, Tel Aviv University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sassoon, G. W. (2012). A slightly modified economy principle: Stable properties have non stable standards. In E. Cohen (Ed.), Proceedings of the Israel Association of Theoretical Linguistics (Vol. 27, pp. 163–182). MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sassoon, G. W. (2016). Multidimensionality in the grammar of gradability. Unpublished manuscript, Bar Ilan University.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • von Stechow, A. (1984). Comparing semantic theories of comparison. Journal of Semantics, 3(1–2), 1–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Storms, G., Boeck, P. D., Hampton, J., & Mechelen, I. V. (1999). Predicting conjunction typicalities by component typicalities. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 6(4), 677–684.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Vries, H. (2010). Evaluative degree modification of adjectives and nouns. MA thesis, Utrecht University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yoon, Y. (1996). Total and partial predicates and the weak and strong interpretations. Natural Language Semantics, 4(3), 217–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

I’m grateful to Yoad Winter for funding my participation in the 2015 Madrid workshop from his NWO VICI grant no. 277-80-002. I would also like to thank Galit Weidman Sassoon and two anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments and suggestions. Finally, I gratefully acknowledge the following photographers who made their content available for noncommercial free use: Cristiano del Riccio, Georges Biard, Matt Yohe, Tony Wills, Nevit Dilmen, Martien Brand, Wikipedia editor JZ85, Glen Fergus, Mike Pazzani, Samuel Blanc, and Andreas Trepte.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hanna de Vries .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Appendices

Appendix 1: Experiment 1

All experimental materials in these appendices are translated from the original Dutch. The experiment only used images either in the public domain (PD-1923/PD-US-no notice) or licensed under Creative Commons terms (CC BY/CC BY-NC), but are not included below as they failed to meet the copyright requirements for the present volume.

The items on the two lists below were shown 3 times at different points in the questionnaire; each time, all 10 instantiations of the concept were shown in the same order and on a single page. In each of the 3 parts, subjects rated each item on a 7-point scale (by ticking a box) according to a different criterion: first, familiarity; second, typicality; and third, emotional attitude. Items consisted of a name and a picture with a mouse-over description.

Birds

Name

Picture (url)

Mouse-over text

Blackbird

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Male_blackbird-b.jpg

This 25-cm-tall songbird occurs mainly in Europe. It’s an omnivore with an extensive song repertoire.

Ostrich

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ostrich_Struthio_camelus_Tanzania_3739_cropped_Nevit.jpg

The ostrich lives in Africa and is the biggest bird on earth. It can’t fly but it can run very fast. Females lay their eggs in a common nest and take turns brooding.

Rock bunting

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Emberiza_cia_Martien_Brand.jpg

This 16-cm-tall songbird occurs in Asia, Northern Africa and Southern Europe. It nests on or close to the ground and feeds on insects and seeds.

Egyptian goose

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Alopochen_aegyptiaca#/media/File:Alopochen_aegyptiacus_-_Egyptian_goose.JPG

This waterfowl isn’t actually a goose but a duck. Originally from Africa; the ones we find in the Netherlands are feralised ornamental birds.

Gannet

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jan-van-gent.JPG

This large, aerodynamic seabird hunts for fish in the North Sea and Atlantic Ocean. Its legs and wings are weak, so it can only fly in strong winds. Is a stellar diver.

Kiwi

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tokoeka.jpg

This New-Zealand bird is roughly the size of a chicken, but lays eggs six times the size of a chicken’s egg. It can’t fly and is mainly nocturnal.

Green honeycreeper

https://www.flickr.com/photos/pazzani/5553987995

A small tropical songbird that occurs in Central and South America. Feeds predominantly on nectar.

Emperor penguin

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Emperor_Penguin_Manchot_empereur.jpg

The biggest penguin; measures up to 120 cm and weighs up to 45 kilos. Subsists mainly on fish. It can’t fly, but it can dive up to 500 meters deep and stay underwater for up to 18 min.

Kingfisher

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Common_Kingfisher_Alcedo_atthis.jpg

This 16-cm-tall bird occurs in Europe, Asia and Northern Africa. It dives for fish and nests in steep riverbanks.

Little grebe

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tachybaptus_ruficollis_ruficollis.jpg

This small, shy water bird is related to the great crested grabe. It occurs in large parts of Europe, Asia and Africa and feeds mainly on water insects and larvae.

Geniuses

Name

Picture

Mouse-over text

Leonardo da Vinci

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Possible_Self-Portrait_of_Leonardo_da_Vinci.jpg

(1452-1519): Italian artist, scientist, architect and inventor. Considered one of the best painters ever, with the Mona Lisa as his most famous work. His designs include things as wide-ranging as defence works, musical instruments to unbuildable but ingenious flying machines. Was also a gifted astronomer and physiologist.

Emily Dickinson

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Emily_Dickinson#/media/File:Emily_Dickinson_daguerreotype_(cropped).jpg

(1830–1886): American poet who lived her life in near-total seclusion. Published only a few poems during her lifetime (which her publisher adjusted to conform to the age’s style and taste; her enormous body of work was only discovered after her death. Now considered one of the greatest American poets, whose unconventional style placed her far ahead of her time.

Dmitri Mendeleev

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dmitri_Mendeleev#/media/File:DIMendeleevCab.jpg

(1834–1907): Russian chemist and inventor of the Periodic Table of Elements, a spatial ordering of all chemical elements based on their properties, which came to him in a dream. It correctly predicted the existence of various elements that hadn’t yet been discovered.

Steve Jobs

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Steve_Jobs_Headshot_2010-CROP.jpg

(1955–2011): Entrepreneur and pioneer of the 70 s computer revolution. Saved the struggling Apple company with innovative technology and groundbreaking, iconic design. Was also CEO of Pixar, which under his leadership produced several of the most critically acknowledged animation films ever.

Hildegard von Bingen

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Hildegard_von_Bingen#/media/File:Hildegard_von_Bingen.jpg

(1098–1179): Benedictine abbess, writer, poet, composer, mystical theologian, scientist and philosopher. Is considered one of the founders of natural history as a scientific field. For her religious poetry, she invented her own script and hundreds of new words. Her music is still regularly performed.

Marie Skło-dowska Curie

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Maria_Sklodowska-Curie#/media/File:Marie_Curie_1900_-_DIG17379.jpg

(1967–1934):\(^\mathrm{a}\) Polish-French physicist and chemist, pioneer in the field of radioactivity (which eventually caused her death). She was the first female professor at the university of Paris, the first woman to win a Nobel prize, the first person to win a second Nobel prize, and the only recipient of two Nobel prizes in different categories.

Rabindranath Tagore

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Rabindranath_Tagore#/media/File:Rabindranath_Tagore_in_1909.jpg

(1861–1942): Bengali poet, composer, writer, painter, independence and peace activist and education reformer. Published his first volume of poetry when he was 16, and his first opera when he was 20. Was the first non-western winner of the Nobel prize for literature (in 1913) and used the prize money to found his own university. Wrote the national anthems of both India and Bangladesh.

Albert Einstein

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Portrait_photographs_of_Albert_Einstein#/media/File:Einstein-formal_portrait-35_(cropped).jpg

(1879–1955): German physicist and founder of the theory of relativity. At 27, in a single year, he published 4 revolutionary physics papers on different topics, written in his spare time next to his day job as an office clerk. Published over 300 scientific articles during his lifetime and won a Nobel prize in 1921.

Michael Jackson

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Michael_Jackson_Cannescropped.jpg

(1958–2009): Eccentric singer, songwriter, dancer and producer known as the ‘King of Pop’. Began his singing career as a five-year-old, in the family group The Jackson Five. His album ‘Thriller’ is the best-sold album of all time; the eponymous music video is considered revolutionary and is the only music video ever to be included in the American national film registry.

Björk

https://www.flickr.com/photos/26377221@N06/2498816562

(1965-): This Icelandic singer and multi-instrumentalist released her debut album when she was 11. Is known for her groundbreaking, avant-gardistic music and unique music videos, on which she collaborates with international film directors, artists and fashion designers. In 2011, she released an album consisting fully of interactive apps, which has since been included in the permanent collection of the MoMA in New York. Has also received multiple acting awards.

  1. \(^\mathrm{a}\)Note the typo in these dates (1967 instead of 1867); I do not expect this to have influenced the results in any way

Appendix 2: Experiment 3

The items on the list below were shown in blocks of 10 items per page; within each page, items were randomised differently for each participant. Each item started with the statement “A real, typical X...” followed by 3 possible continuations; first, an All-or-nothing one (A); second, a Bounded one (B); and third, an Unbounded one (U). Participants had to choose exactly 1 of the continuations by ticking a box.

The Dutch construction translated here somewhat inaccurately with ‘but not’ is maar ook weer niet (‘but also again not’), which is used to qualify a previous utterance by explicitly negating a stronger alternative, e.g. Ze was boos, maar ook weer niet woedend ‘she was angry, but not exactly furious’. It is somewhat weaker than plain ‘but not’; a speaker who utters maar ook weer niet X seems to be hedging her commitment to the belief that X is false. As a result, the B continuations involve a slight asymmetry that is mostly lost in the translations below: the boundedness of the property is of secondary importance to possessing it in the first place.

Items: NERD

Page

A real, typical nerd:

1

A has a peculiar hobby/interest that he/she puts a lot of time into and knows a lot about

 

B has a peculiar hobby/interest that he/she puts a lot of time into and knows a lot about, but not an unrealistic lot

 

U has a peculiar hobby/interest that he/she puts a lot of time into and knows a lot about—the more the better

 

A real, typical nerd:

2

A has great computer skills

 

B has great computer skills, but not unrealistically great

 

U has great computer skills—the greater the skills, the better

 

A real, typical nerd:

3

A is socially awkward

 

B is socially awkward, but not extremely socially awkward

 

U is socially awkward—the more socially awkward, the better

 

A real, typical nerd:

4

A wears glasses

 

B wears strong glasses, but not ridiculously strong

 

U wears strong glasses—the stronger, the better

 

A real, typical nerd:

5

A is intelligent

 

B is intelligent, but not absurdly intelligent

 

U is intelligent—the more intelligent, the better

 

Items: FRAT BOY

Page

A real, typical frat boy

1

A behaves in an arrogant manner

 

B behaves in an arrogant manner, but not absurdly arrogant

 

U behaves in an arrogant manner—the more arrogant, the better

 

A real, typical frat boy

2

A wears a suit jacket and tie

 

B wears a suit jacket and tie, but not 24/7

 

U wears a suit jacket and tie—the more often the better, he preferably sleeps in them too

 

A real, typical frat boy

3

A has a posh accent

 

B has a posh accent, but not extremely posh

 

U has a posh accent—the posher, the frattier

 

A real, typical frat boy

4

A drinks a lot of beer

 

B drinks a lot of beer, but not an unrealistic lot

 

U drinks a lot of beer—the more, and the more frequently, the frattier

 

A real, typical frat boy

5

A is loud and obnoxious

 

B is loud and obnoxious, but not ridiculously loud and obnoxious

 

U is loud and obnoxious—the louder and more obnoxious, the better

 

Items: HIPSTER

Page

A real, typical hipster

1

A wears glasses

 

B wears glasses, but not extremely prominent ones

 

U wears glasses—the more prominent, the more hipsterish

 

A real, typical hipster

2

A has an alternative, eccentric style

 

B has an alternative, eccentric style, but not extremely alternative or eccentric

 

U has an alternative, eccentric style—the more alternative/eccentric, the better

 

A real, typical hipster

3

A has a long and/or wild beard

 

B has a long and/or wild beard, but not extremely long or wild

 

U has a long and/or wild bird—the longer/wilder, the more hipsterish

 

A real, typical hipster

4

A loves obscure music

 

B loves obscure music, but not extremely obscure

 

U loves obscure music—the more obscure and unknown, the better

 

A real, typical hipster:

5

A is preoccupied with special, unique and ’pure’ food/coffee/beers

 

B is preoccupied with special, unique and ’pure’ food/coffee/beers, but not extremely obsessed by them

 

U is preoccupied with special, unique and ’pure’ food/coffee/beers—the bigger his/her obsession, the better

 

Items: ARSEHOLE

Page

A real, typical arsehole:

1

A cares little about other people’s needs

 

B cares little about other people’s needs, but is not completely uncaring

 

U cares little about other people’s needs—the less, the better

 

A real, typical arsehole

2

A has an unsympathetic personality

 

B has an unsympathetic personality, but also not pathologically unsympathetic

 

U has an unsympathetic personality—the more unsympathetic, the better

 

A real, typical arsehole:

3

A is a man

 

B is a man, but not an absurdly masculine testosterone bomb

 

U is a man—the more masculine, the better

 

A real, typical arsehole

4

A behaves in a rude, mean manner

 

B behaves in a rude, mean manner, but not excessively rude or mean

 

U behaves in a rude, mean manner—the worse and the more often, the better

 

A real, typical arsehole

5

A is selfish

 

B is selfish, but doesn’t always think of nobody but himself

 

U is selfish—the more selfish, the better

 

Items: NEUROTIC

Page

A real, typical neurotic

1

A worries about everything

 

B worries about everything, but not inordinately deeply or frequently

 

U worries about everything—the deeper and more frequent the worries, the more neurotic

 

A real, typical neurotic

2

A has tics and compulsive tendencies

 

B has tics and compulsive tendencies, but moderately

 

U has tics and compulsive tendencies—the more, the more neurotic

 

A real, typical neurotic

3

A behaves in a nervous and agitated manner

 

B behaves in a nervous and agitated manner, but not excessively nervous and agitated

 

U behaves in a nervous and agitated manner—the more nervous and agitated, the more neurotic

 

A real, typical neurotic

4

A is insecure

 

B is insecure, but not overly insecure

 

U is insecure—the more insecure, the more neurotic

 

A real, typical neurotic

5

A is focused on tiny details

 

B is focused on tiny details, but not absurdly so

 

U is focused on tiny details—the more focused, and the more trivial the details, the better

 

Items: BIRD

Page

A real, typical bird:

1

A lays eggs

 

B lays eggs, but not extremely many

 

U lays eggs—the more the better

 

A real, typical bird

2

A flies

 

B flies, but not all day long

 

U flies—the longer and the more often, the better

 

A real, typical bird

3

A has feathers

 

B has feathers, but also spots without feathers

 

U has feathers all over its body, the more the better

 

A real, typical bird

4

A has wings

 

B has wings, but not overly prominent ones

 

U has wings—the more prominent the better

 

A real, typical bird

5

A has a beak

 

B has a beak, but not an extremely big or striking one

 

U has a beak—the more big/striking, the better

 

Items: CAR SALESMAN

Page

A real, typical car salesman

1

A knows a lot about cars

 

B knows a lot about cars, but not an extreme lot

 

U knows a lot about cars—the more, the better

 

A real, typical car salesman

2

A dresses smartly

 

B dresses smartly, but not too smart

 

U dresses smartly—the smarter, the better

 

A real, typical car salesman

3

A is a smooth talker

 

B is a smooth talker, but not absurdly smooth

 

U is a smooth talker—the smoother, the better

 

A real, typical car salesman

4

A is untrustworthy

 

B is untrustworthy, but not extremely untrustworthy

 

U is untrustworthy—the more untrustworthy, the better

 

A real, typical car salesman

5

A behaves in a friendly and jovial manner

 

B behaves in a friendly and jovial manner, but not overly friendly and jovial

 

U behaves in a friendly and jovial manner—the more friendly and jovial, the better

 

Items: FURNITURE

Page

A real, typical item of furniture

1

A has a surface for sitting or putting something on

 

B has a surface for sitting or putting something on, which is neither too big nor too small

 

U has a surface for sitting or putting something on—the bigger the surface the better

 

A real, typical item of furniture

2

A is made of wood

 

B is made of wood, but also incorporates other materials

 

U is made of wood—the more wooden bits it has, the better

 

A real, typical item of furniture

3

A is used inside the house

 

B is used inside the house, but sometimes outside too

 

U is used only inside the house, never outside

 

A real, typical item of furniture

4

A serves a practical purpose

 

B serves a practical purpose, but also has an aesthetic/artistic component

 

U serves a practical purpose—the more practical, the better

 

A real, typical item of furniture

5

A has legs

 

B has 4 legs

 

U has legs—the more legs, and/or the higher their prominence, the better

 

Items: VEGETABLE

Page

A real, typical vegetable

1

A is eaten for dinner

 

B is eaten dinner, but occasionally as part of other meals too

 

U is eaten for dinner and never as part of another meal

 

A real, typical vegetable

2

A is healthy

 

B is healthy, but not some extremely healthy superfood

 

U is healthy—the healthier, the better

 

A real, typical vegetable

3

A is green

 

B is mainly green, but has some other colours too

 

U is green—the greener the better

 

A real, typical vegetable

4

A needs to be cooked before you can eat it

 

B needs to be cooked before you can eat it, but not too long

 

U needs to be cooked before you can eat it—the longer the better

 

A real, typical vegetable

5

A grows on the ground (and not on a tree)

 

B grows on the ground, but not directly on the ground

 

U grows on the ground—the closer to the ground, the better

 

Items: STUDENT

Page

A real, typical student

1

A lives in a student room/dorm

 

B lives in a student room/dorm, but often returns to his/her parents

 

U lives in a student room/dorm and spends as little as possible time at his/her parents’

 

A real, typical student

2

A studies at college or university

 

B studies at college or university, but isn’t focused on his/her studies 24/7

 

U studies at college or university—the more time spent on studying, the better

 

A real, typical student

3

A is intelligent

 

B is intelligent, but not absurdly intelligent

 

U is intelligent—the more intelligent, the better

 

A real, typical student

4

A is young

 

B is young, but not extremely young

 

U is young—the younger the better

 

A real, typical student

5

A has an active social life

 

B has an active social life, but not outrageously active

 

U has an active social life—the more active, the better

 

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

de Vries, H. (2018). Gradable Nouns as Concepts Without Prototypes. In: Castroviejo, E., McNally, L., Weidman Sassoon, G. (eds) The Semantics of Gradability, Vagueness, and Scale Structure. Language, Cognition, and Mind, vol 4. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-77791-7_5

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-77791-7_5

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-77790-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-77791-7

  • eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics