Abstract
AbstractKennedy (Linguist Philos 30:1–45, 2007) forcefully proposes what is now a widely assumed semantics for absolute gradable adjectives. On this semantics, maximum standard adjectives like “straight” and “dry” ascribe a maximal degree of the underlying quantity. Meanwhile, minimum standard adjectives like “bent” and “wet” merely ascribe a non-zero, non-minimal degree of the underlying quantity. This theory clashes with the ordinary intuition that sentences like “The stick is straight” are frequently true while sentences like “The stick is bent” are frequently informative, and fans of the indicated theory of absolute gradable adjectives appeal to loose talk in response. One goal of this paper is to show that all extant theories of loose talk are inconsistent with this response strategy. Another goal is to offer a revised version of Hoek’s (Philos Rev 127:151–196, 2018, in: Proceedings of the 22nd Amsterdam Colloquium, 2019) recent theory of loose talk that accommodates absolute gradable adjectives after all, while being defensible against a range of important concerns.
Funder
Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference24 articles.
1. Carter, S. (2019). The dynamics of loose talk. Noûs, 55(1), 171–198.
2. DeRose, K. (2012). Replies to Nagel, Ludlow, and Fantl and McGrath. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 84(3), 703–721.
3. Dinges, A. (2021). Knowledge and loose talk. In C. Kyriacou & K. Wallbridge (Eds.), Skeptical Invariantism Reconsidered (pp. 272–297). Routledge.
4. Grice, H. P. (1989). Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
5. Hoek, D. (2019). Loose talk, scale presuppositions and QUD, Proceedings of the 22nd Amsterdam Colloquium, pp. 171–180.