Certainty and possibility

Author(s):  
Daniel Lassiter

This chapter discusses several more epistemic adjectives. Certain and its near-synonym sure are maximum adjectives that combine with proportional and percentage modifiers. A comparison with non-modal adjectives suggests a ratio-scale classification with at least an upper bound. Several lines of evidence indicate that certainty and likelihood are formally closely related. However, there are puzzles around the interpretation of uncertain that indicate that the relation may not be one of identity. I consider three possible analyses, all of which have certain advantages and drawbacks. I then turn to possible, which is often claimed to be non-gradable. Naturalistic data indicate that possibility is a graded concept (e.g., increase the possibility of), and that possible is gradable (e.g., too/very/n% possible). While an analysis in terms of some kind of scalar coercion is technically feasible, the most natural explanation is that possible is a gradable adjective whose scale is closely related to likely’s scale.

On Goodness ◽  
2019 ◽  
pp. 45-88
Author(s):  
David Conan Wolfsdorf

The sense of “good” that has been of principal interest to philosophers and that is the focus of chapters 3, 4, and 5 is evaluative “good.” Hereafter, the modifier “evaluative” is dropped. “Good” is a gradable adjective. Accordingly, chapter 3 examines the semantics of gradable adjectives. The chapter argues that “good” is the unmarked member of an antonym pair of relative gradable adjectives, the marked member being (evaluative) “bad.” The lexical meaning of “good” is associated with a non-significant degree on an open scale of unspecified value. In tokenings of sentences of the form “x is good,” the degree associated with “good” is modulated to a significant degree. Significance of degree is a quantity that exceeds the upper bound of a range of numeric values based on a contextually determined comparison class.


2019 ◽  
Vol 42 ◽  
Author(s):  
Talya Sadeh

Abstract According to Bastin et al.’s integrative memory model, familiarity may be attributed to both entity representations and relational representations. However, the model does not specify what triggers familiarity for relational representations. I argue that fluency is a key player in the attribution of familiarity regardless of the type of representation. Two lines of evidence are reviewed in support of my claim.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document