International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World
(IJLLALW)
Volume 9 (3), July 2015; 77-­‐88 Sheikhan, S. A., et al EISSN: 2289-­‐2737 & ISSN: 2289-­‐3245 www.ijllalw.org LEXICAL PRESUPPOSITION TRIGGERS: A SEMANTICPRAGMATIC APPROACH TO VAGUENESS
Sayyed Amir Sheikhan
Department of Linguistics, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
E-mail: [email protected] (Corresponding Author)
Valiollah Hosseinpour
Department of Linguistics, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
Ali Afkhami
Department of Linguistics, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
Zahra Golzadeh
Department of Linguistics, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
ABSTRACT
Antonyms play a significant role in everyday conversations. According to the Croft’s point of
view (Craft & Cruse, 2004) of classification of adjectives, their application in conversation can
lead to vagueness and hence misconception. This paper is an attempt to provide an analysis for
the application of a few lexical presupposition triggers in sentences containing gradable antonyms in order to make presuppositions for assigning the scale to scale-free adjectives and hence,
remove vagueness. To this end, the authors clung on their own linguistic intuition as well as administration of a survey followed by a qualitative analysis of the data. The research revealed that
Persian speakers, when using comparative structures containing comparative free-scale gradable antonym, whenever scale specification is necessary use two types of lexical presuppositions
called ‘intensifier’ and ‘receder’. Their shared characteristics is that they lack any semantic content and even lack any similar grammatical function in other contexts. The implication of utilising these lexical presupposition triggers would be removing vagueness within a course of conversation.
KEYWORDS: Lexical Presupposition Triggers, Vagueness, Gradable Antonyms
INTRODUCTION
Due to the great importance and everyday application of comparisons, and significant function
and application of adjectives, specifically speaking antonyms, in conversations and linguistic
functions, antonyms and their characteristics (semantics of antonyms) have always been the subject of study since Aristotle. In the recent decade, also, a great number of researchers have paid
significant attention to characteristics of gradable antonyms and their classification and have presented some categories. According to the Croft’s point of view (Craft & Cruse, 2004) of classification of the adjectives and considering the fact that since in his perspective there is at least one
group of adjectives -disjunct equipollent- having the characteristics of system-specific and scalefree, their application in conversation can lead to vagueness and hence misconception, the authors
77
International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World
(IJLLALW)
Volume 9 (3), July 2015; 77-­‐88 Sheikhan, S. A., et al EISSN: 2289-­‐2737 & ISSN: 2289-­‐3245 www.ijllalw.org have studied one of the strategies used by the speakers to make the message scale-specific. This
paper is an attempt to provide an analysis for the application of a few lexical presupposition triggers in sentences containing gradable antonyms, or as Craft puts it disjunct equipollents, in order
to make presuppositions for assigning the scale to scale-free adjectives.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Vagueness and presupposition triggers in general and lexical presupposition triggers in particular
have been scrutinized in different languages. Drave (2001) conducted a corpus-based study into
the forms and functions of vague language in intercultural conversations between speakers of
English and Cantonese. It was found that, whilst English speakers use more vague language than
Cantonese speakers, the range of different types and major collocations were similar for the two
groups of speakers. In addition, the results showed that there were important functional differences.
In another study on vagueness, Channell (1994) categorizes vagueness and focuses on linguistic
expressions that are, in Sadock’s (1977) formulation, ’’purposely and unabashedly vague’’
(1994: 20). She provides a comprehensive description of different ways of approximating quantities in English, of various ways of referring vaguely to categories (e.g. with tags such as or something like that), and of totally vague words.
Schmid (2001) studied lexical presupposition triggers, namely abstract nouns. This study showed
that depending on the types of nouns that English speakers use, speakers can exploit the N-bethat-construction in the service of an array of presuppositions, among them existential and factive
semantic ones as well as pragmatic ones.
In their recent work, Chemla and Bott (2013) developed and tested two processing accounts of
presupposition projection, the global-first model and the local-first model. They tested these predictions using a verification task. The results showed that across two experiments, using different
materials and instructions, participants were faster to derive the global interpretation than the local interpretation, in contrast to the local-first model.
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
In the present study the fowling research questions are addressed:
How Persian speakers avoid vagueness while using gradable antonyms?
What role do presupposition triggers play in avoiding vagueness?
What are the lexical presupposition triggers used to avoid vagueness?
METGODOLOGY
In the present study, the authors -all Persian native speakers- exploited their linguistic intuition to
provide the study with some data. To this end, first and second named authors came up with the
example sentences as the data which were then double checked by the third and forth named au78
International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World
(IJLLALW)
Volume 9 (3), July 2015; 77-­‐88 Sheikhan, S. A., et al EISSN: 2289-­‐2737 & ISSN: 2289-­‐3245 www.ijllalw.org thored in terms of their grammaticality and acceptability as well as the implications they may
have. In addition, in order to have more reliable study, we have demonstrated occasional surveys
to shed light on the implications of the Persian sentences. It is note worthy to mention that all the
participants were Persian native speakers and university students. The data was then subjected to
a close qualitative analysis in the light of the objectives of the study.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Gradable antonyms
While discussing lexical semantic relations, the term semantic opposition is used as a general tag
for a couple of relations among lexicons. But semantic opposition consists of various kinds with
having unique characteristics. Antonyms usually consist of verbs, nouns and adjectives. The present study targets gradable adjectives. According to the research revealed in Kennedy (2007),
Kennedy and McNally (2005), Kameon, et al. (2011), adjectives can be categorized by their syntactic-semantic behaviors in two main categories of absolute and relative adjectives. The differences can be summarized as follows:
B. Syntactic criteria: negating either pole of the antonyms can be considered as the proof of the
other pole. For example:
(1) The door is open.
means:
(2) The door is not closed.
On the other hand:
(3) The door is big.
does not mean:
(4) The door is not small.
B. Semantic criteria: using any type of adjectives peculiar to structure of the other type is not
allowed.
(5a) The door is utterly closed.
(5b) *The door is utterly big.
(6a) * The door is very closed.
(6b) The door is very big.
(7a) * This door is more closed that the other one.
(7b) This door is bigger than the other one.
Hence, it can be concluded that relative adjectives share the same characteristics, which is being
gradable. That is, all of them are gradable.
(8) and (9) are not ungrammatical with any substitution for a and b if relative antonyms are used:
X, Y, W, Z
(8) X is more a than Y, or
(9) W is more b than Z
So we can call them gradable antonyms. But Croft and Cruse (2004) believe that the classifica79
International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World
(IJLLALW)
Volume 9 (3), July 2015; 77-­‐88 Sheikhan, S. A., et al EISSN: 2289-­‐2737 & ISSN: 2289-­‐3245 www.ijllalw.org tion does not suffice since the words categorized, as antonyms are not all the same and have different characteristics. They categorize relative antonyms into four categories; overlapping antonyms, monoscalar, disjunct equipollent, parallel equipollent. The present research targets comparative structures containing gradable antonyms (relative antonyms) belonging to the category
of disjunct equipollent. These antonyms have the following characteristics:
A. Both poles of the axis are scale-specified, i.e. on the axis formed by the two poles of adjectives a
and b, for the arguments X and Y:
(10a) If X is more a than Y,
one cannot necessarily conclude that:
(10b) X is a.
And inevitably:
(10c) Y is b.
B. Both poles of the axis are system-specified, i.e. in the mentioned axis all the time and in any
condition:
If (11a) is true, it cannot be claimed that (11b) is always true.
(11a) X is more b than Y.
(11b) Y is more a than X.
The interaction of the two characteristics mentioned above makes a neutral point in the middle of
the axis (Kennedy, 2007), which is usually stated by a neutral adjective. For example, considering an axis with the antonyms ‘hot’ and ‘cold’ being the pole, there is a median point which Persian speakers define as ‘velarm’, meaning tepid. In fact, for the two maximum standard adjectives
‘hot’ and ‘cold’, there is a common minimum standard adjective named ‘tepid’.
Vagueness
In comparative sentences containing comparative structure, disjunct equipollent antonyms, due to
feature A, are scale-free. Consider the following example:
(12a) Jack is fatter than Tom.
(12a) Can be interpreted differently in different contexts. Consider the following contexts:
(12b) Jack is a middle-aged man who is 56 kg in weight and Tom is his twin brother who is 54 kg
in weight.
(12c) Jack is a middle-aged man who is 143 kg in weight and Tom is his twin brother who is 140
kg in weight.
(12d) Jack is middle-aged man who is 90 kg in weight and Tom is a nine-year-old boy who is 18
80
International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World
(IJLLALW)
Volume 9 (3), July 2015; 77-­‐88 Sheikhan, S. A., et al EISSN: 2289-­‐2737 & ISSN: 2289-­‐3245 www.ijllalw.org kg in weight.
Therefore, the feature scale-free of the comparative adjective ‘fatter’ is extended to the whole
sentence and has made it scale-free. In this condition, it is only with the help of a context that one
can judge, for example, the conditions of (12c) whether:
(13a) Jack is fat.
(13b) Tom is fat.
or unlike the mentioned adjective in the sentence, for the context (12b) judge:
(14a) Jack is thin.
(14b) Tom is thin.
However, context conditions are not always clear. In some occasions, the judgment about the
context is not the same, or even the speaker and listener are uninformed about their same judgment about the context. In such a condition, the speaker and listener should employ a strategy to
adjust their same judgment on a specific scale. The trend can be named ‘Scale Specification’; a
prevalent strategy among Persian speakers to use lexical presupposition triggers.
The word ‘ham’, meaning ‘also’ and ‘even’
The word ‘ham’ is used in two positions in these sentences:
(15) Jack ham az Tom chaghtar ast.
Jack even than Tom fatter
is
Even Jack is fatter than Tom.
(16) Jack az Tom ham chaghtar ast.
Jack is Tom also fatter
is
Jack is also fatter than Tom.
The present paper first deals with (16).
Having asked any Persian speaker what assumption (16) holds, we assume that the answer is similar to (17) -16 Persian speakers were surveyed and solely one different answer was observed.
(17) Tom is fat.
Now, the question is that whether (17) is the presupposition, entailment or Grecian inference for
(16)? First, we adjust the superficial-logical features of the presupposition for the abovementioned example. Considering the sentence (2) as p and (17) as q, the logical features of the
presupposition (Saeed, 2003) are as follows:
A.
B.
81
International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World
(IJLLALW)
Volume 9 (3), July 2015; 77-­‐88 Sheikhan, S. A., et al EISSN: 2289-­‐2737 & ISSN: 2289-­‐3245 www.ijllalw.org C.
The given example fully confirms features A and C, but has a dual function for feature B.
(18) Jack az Tom ham chaghtar nist.
Jack than Tom even fatter
not
Jack isn’t even fatter than Tom. (NOT Tom is fat)
(19) In Jack nist ke az Tom ham chaghtar ast.
This Jack isn’t who than Tom also fatter
is
It isn’t Jack who is also fatter than Tom. (Tom is fat.)
Both two negations are common in references and it is usually expected to keep one presupposition in the two types of negation and remove the implication or entailment. However, such examples have a weird reaction toward the test and the issue demands further study. Now we study the
semantic features of presupposition and adjust to the table provided by the references.
Table 1: Comparing the features of presupposition, entailment and implication
Entailment
Presupposition
Implication
Projection when embedded
No
Yes
No
Cancelable when embedded
---
Yes
---
Cancelable when unembedded
No
No
Yes
Projection Feature
(20) Negation:
In Jack nist ke az Tom ham bolandtar ast.
This Jack isn’t that than Tom also taller
is
It is not Jack who is also taller than Tom. (i.e. Tom is tall.)
(21) Making an introduction for the condition:
Agar Jack az Tom ham sari’tar bashad, mosabeghe ra
mibarad.
If
Jack than Tom also faster be
, race
(object marker) wins
If Jack is also faster than Tom, he will win the race. (i.e. Tom is fast.)
(22) Making question:
Aya
Jack az Tom ham khasistar ast?
(Question marker) Jack than Tom also stingier is
Is Jack also (even) stingier than Tom? (i.e. Tom is stingy.)
(23) Possibility:
Ehtemalan Jack az Tom ham shoja’tar
ast.
Possibly Jack than Tom also more courageous is
Possibly, Jack is more courageous than Tom. (i.e. Tom is courageous.)
82
International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World
(IJLLALW)
Volume 9 (3), July 2015; 77-­‐88 Sheikhan, S. A., et al EISSN: 2289-­‐2737 & ISSN: 2289-­‐3245 www.ijllalw.org (24) Probability:
In ke Jack az Tom ham chaghtar bashad, momken ast.
This that Jack than Tom also fatter
to be , probable is
Probably Jack is also (even) fatter than Tom. (i.e. Tom is fat.)
(25) Belief:
Mike mo’taghed ast Jack az Tom ham naghash behtari ast.
Mike believes
Jack than Tom also painter better is
Mike believes that Jack is also (even) a better painter than Tom. (i.e. Tom is a good painter.)
It is clear that the assumption in (17) has the projection feature.
Deletion without substitution
(26) ? Jack az Tom ham chaghtar ast, harchand Tom chagh nist.
Jack than Tom also fatter
is , however Tom fat
isn’t
Jack is also (even) fatter than Tom; however, Tom is not fat.
(27) ? In ketab az an pirahan ham gerantar
ast, ama an pirahan geran
nist.
This book than that shirt
also more expensive is, but that shirt expensive is’nt
The book is also (even) more expensive than the shirt, although the shirt is not expensive.
As is implied –at least based on the authors’ linguistic intuition- that (26) and (27) are unacceptable. And the unacceptability is merely due to the presence of the word ‘ham’. A comparison with
the acceptable sentences (28) and (29) confirms the claim.
(28) Jack az Tom chaghtar ast, harchand Tom chagh nist.
Jack than Tom fatter
is, however Tom fat
isn’t
Jack is fatter than Tom; however, Tom is not fat.
(29) In ketab az an pirahan gerantar
ast, ama an pirahan geran
nist.
This book than that shirt more expensive is, but that shirt expensive isn’t
The book is more expensive than the shirt, although the shirt is not expensive.
Deletion with Substitution
(30) Ehtemalan Jack az Tom ham shoja’tar
ast, harchand Tom shoja’
nist.
Possibly Jack than Tom also more courageous is, however Tom courageous isn’t
Possibly, Jack is also more courageous than Tom; however, Tom is not courageous.
(31) Agar Tom chagh bashad, Jack az Tom ham chaghtar ast.
If
Tom fat
to be , Jack than Tom also fatter
is
If Tom is fat, Jack is also fatter than Tom.
(32) Mike mo’taghed ast ahu az yuzpalang ham
sari’tar ast, ama yuzpalang sari’ nist.
Mike believes
deer than panther also (even) faster is, but panther
fast isn’t
Mike believes that deer is also (even) faster than panther, but panther is not fast.
Considering examples (21) to (23), it can be said that the assumption presented in (8) and the like
sentences behave similarly to presuppositions. Most specifically, example (22), which is the most
83
International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World
(IJLLALW)
Volume 9 (3), July 2015; 77-­‐88 Sheikhan, S. A., et al EISSN: 2289-­‐2737 & ISSN: 2289-­‐3245 www.ijllalw.org famous and the commonest remover structure in recourses, vividly illustrates this feature.
The word ‘digar’, meaning ‘else’ or ‘anymore’
The word ‘digar’ is used in two positions in these sentences:
(33)
(34)
Jack digar az Tom chaghtar ast.
Jack else than Tom fatter
is
Jack, else, is fatter than Tom.
Jack az Tom digar chaghtar ast.
Jack than Tom else fatter
is
Jack is fatter than Tom, else.
It can be judged about these two sentences that both convey the same descriptive semantic content. However, their emphatic meaning can differ. Hence, at this level of study, these two sentences can be considered as paraphrases. Anyhow, to observe the structural similarity to the previous examples, the sentence (34) has been used as the main subject.
Having asked any Persian speaker what assumption (33) and (34) hold, we assume that the answer is similar to (35) - 16 Persian speakers were surveyed and 16 similar judgments were observed.
(35) Tom is not that much fat.
Once more, the query rises whether (35) is really the presupposition for (34)? Hence, similar to
the steps taken to study whether ‘ham’ is a presupposition trigger, ‘digar’ has been studied.
The mentioned example finely adjusts to the features A and B mentioned in part 4; however, it
has a dual behaviour toward feature B. This dual behavior is even more complicated that the sentence structure with raising negation doesn’t seem to be acceptable.
(36) Jack az Tom digar
chaghtar nist.
Jack than Tom anymore fatter
isn’t
Jack isn’t fatter than Tom anymore. (NOT Tom is not that much fat.)
(37) (*) In Jack nist ke az Tom digar
chaghtar ast.
This Jack isn’t who than Tom anymore fatter
is
It isn’t Jack who is fatter than Tom anymore. (Tom is not that much fat.)
Again, table (1) is illustrated for an easy comparison of the features as table (2).
Table 2: Comparing the features of presupposition, entailment and implication
Entailment
Presupposition
Implication
Projection when embedded
No
Yes
No
Cancelable when embedded
---
Yes
---
Cancelable when unembedded
No
No
Yes
84
International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World
(IJLLALW)
Volume 9 (3), July 2015; 77-­‐88 Sheikhan, S. A., et al EISSN: 2289-­‐2737 & ISSN: 2289-­‐3245 www.ijllalw.org Projection Feature
(38) Negation:
In Jack nist ke az Tom dige bolandtar ast.
This Jack isn’t that than Tom else taller
is
This is not Jack who is else taller than Tom. (i.e. Tom is not that much tall.)
(39) Making an introduction for the condition:
Agar Jack dige az Tom sari’tar bashab, mosabeghe ra
mibarad.
If
Jack else than Tom faster to be , race
(object marker) wins
If Jack is else faster than Tom, he will win the race. (i.e. Tom is not that fast.)
(40) Making question:
Aya
Jack az Tom dige khasistar ast?
(Question marker) Jack than Tom else stingier is?
Is Jack else stingier than Tom? (i.e. Tom is not that much stingy.)
(41) Possibility:
Ehtemalan Jack dige az Tom shoja’tar
ast.
Possibly Jack else than Tom more courageous is
Possibly, Jack is else more courageous than Tom. (i.e. Tom is not that much courageous.)
(42) Probability:
In ke Jack az Tom dige chaghtar bashad, momken ast.
This that Jack than Tom else fatter
to be , probable is
Probably Jack is else fatter than Tom. (i.e. Tom is not that much fat.)
(43) Belief:
Mike mo’taghed ast Jack az Tom dige naghash behtari ast.
Mike believes
Jack than Tom else painter better is
Mike believes that Jack is else a better painter than Tom. (i.e. Tom is not that much a
good painter.)
It is clear that the assumption in (34) has the projection feature.
Deletion without substitution
(44) ? Jack az Tom ke chaghtar ast, harchand Tom chagh ast.
Jack than Tom else fatter
is, however Tom fat
is
Jack is else fatter than Tom; however, Tom is fat.
(45) ? In ketab az aan pirahan ke gerantar
ast, ama an pirahan geran
ast.
This book than that shirt else more expensive is , but that shirt expensive is
The book is else more expensive than the shirt, although the shirt is expensive.
As is implied –at least based on the authors’ linguistic intuition- (44) and (45) are unacceptable
and weird. And the unacceptability is again merely due to the lack of the word ‘digar’. A Com85
International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World
(IJLLALW)
Volume 9 (3), July 2015; 77-­‐88 Sheikhan, S. A., et al EISSN: 2289-­‐2737 & ISSN: 2289-­‐3245 www.ijllalw.org parison with the acceptable sentences (46) and (47) confirms the claim.
(46) Jack az Tom chaghtar ast, harchand Tom chagh nist.
Jack than Tom fatter
is, however Tom fat
isn’t
Jack is fatter than Tom; however, Tom is not fat.
(47) In ketab az an pirahan gerantar
ast, ama an pirahan geran
nist.
This book than that shirt more expensive is , but that shirt expensive isn’t
The book is more expensive than the shirt, although the shirt is not expensive.
Deletion with substitution
(48) Ehtemalan Jack az Tom ham shoja’tar
ast, harchand Tom shoja’
nist.
Possibly Jack than Tom also more courageous is , however Tom courageous isn’t
Possibly, Jack is also more courageous than Tom; however, Tom is not courageous.
(49) Agar Tom ghach bashad, Jack az Tom ham chaghtar ast.
If
Tom fat
to be , Jack than Tom also fatter
is
If Tom is fat, Jack is also fatter than Tom.
(50) Mike mo’taghed ast aahu az yuzpalang ham sari’tar ast, ama yuzpalang sari’ nist.
Mike believes
deer than panther
also faster is , but panther
fast isn’t
Mike believes that deer is also faster than panther, but panther is not fast.
Considering examples (48) to (50), it can be said that the assumption presented in (34) and the
like sentences behave similarly to presuppositions.
CONCLUSION
According to the studies in this research, it can be concluded that Persian speakers, when using
comparative structures containing comparative free-scale gradable antonym, whenever scale
specification is necessary can use two types of lexical presupposition triggers in line with determining the position of the mentioned noun in the sentence on axis of the adjective.
The first type of these presupposition triggers can be called ‘intensifier’ or ‘advancer’ presupposition trigger. This type, in which the word ‘ham’ was mentioned as an example and contains the
word ‘hatta’-meaning ‘even’- and the phrase ‘hatta….ham’-meaning ‘even also’-, advances the
internal argument of the adjectival predicate mentioned in the sentence on the axis of the adjective to intensify the external argument of the adjectival phrase in the sentence in having that adjective.
The second type of these presupposition triggers can be named ‘receder’ or ‘extenuator’ presupposition triggers. This type, in which the word ‘dige’ was mentioned as an example and contains
the word ‘ke’- and the phrase ‘ke…..dige’, ‘recede’ the internal argument of the adjectival predicate mentioned in the sentence on the axis of the adjective to extenuate the external argument of
the adjectival phrase in the sentence in having that adjective.
The shared characteristics of these two types of lexical presupposition triggers which differenti86
International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World
(IJLLALW)
Volume 9 (3), July 2015; 77-­‐88 Sheikhan, S. A., et al EISSN: 2289-­‐2737 & ISSN: 2289-­‐3245 www.ijllalw.org ates them from the other lexical presupposition triggers is that these types lack any semantic content and even lack any similar grammatical function in other contexts, and their only function is
to make these presuppositions in order to specify the scale. It is noteworthy to mention that the
current study only explicated a few number of the strategies to avoid vagueness, however, attempt can be made to elaborate upon the other strategies exploited by speakers not to sound
vague.
REFERENCES
Abusch, D. (2002). Lexical alternatives as a source of pragmatic presuppositions. In Semantics
and Linguistic Theory (pp. 1-19).
Asher, N. (2013). Implicatures and discourse structure. Lingua, 132, 13-28.
Carston, R. (2008). Thoughts and utterances: The pragmatics of explicit communication. John
Wiley & Sons.
Channell, J. (1994). Vague language. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Chemla, E., & Bott, L. (2013). Processing presuppositions: Dynamic semantics vs pragmatic enrichment. Language and Cognitive Processes, 28(3), 241-260.
Cole, P., & Sadock, J. M. (Eds.). (1977). Syntax and semantics: grammatical relations (Vol. 8).
Academic Pr.
Croft, W., & Cruse, D. A. (2004). Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge University Press.
de Saussure, L. (2013). Background relevance. Journal of Pragmatics, 59, 178-189.
Domaneschi, F. (2011). Towards a normative epistemic account of presuppositions. Journal of
Pragmatics, 43(15), 3822-3831.
Drave, N. (2001). Vaguely speaking: a corpus approach to vague language in intercultural conversations. Language and Computers, 36(1), 25-40.
Kamoen, N., Holleman, B., Nouwen, R., Sanders, T., & van den Bergh, H. (2011). Absolutely
relative or relatively absolute? The linguistic behavior of gradable adjectives and degree
modifiers. Journal of pragmatics, 43(13), 3139-3151.
Kennedy, C. (1999). Projecting the adjective: The syntax and semantics of gradability and comparison. Routledge.
Kennedy, C. (2001). Polar opposition and the ontology of ‘degrees’. Linguistics and philosophy,
24(1), 33-70.
Kennedy, C. (2007). Vagueness and grammar: The semantics of relative and absolute gradable
adjectives. Linguistics and philosophy, 30(1), 1-45.
Kennedy, C., & McNally, L. (2005). Scale structure, degree modification, and the semantics of
gradable predicates. Language, 345-381.
Paradis, C. (2008). Configurations, construals and change: expressions of degree. English Language and Linguistics, 12(02), 317-343.
Rotstein, C., & Winter, Y. (2004). Total adjectives vs. partial adjectives: Scale structure and
higher-order modifiers. Natural Language Semantics, 12(3), 259-288.
Schmid, H. J. (2001). ‘Presupposition can be a bluff’: How abstract nouns can be used as presupposition triggers. Journal of pragmatics, 33(10), 1529-1552.
87
International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World
(IJLLALW)
Volume 9 (3), July 2015; 77-­‐88 Sheikhan, S. A., et al EISSN: 2289-­‐2737 & ISSN: 2289-­‐3245 www.ijllalw.org Syrett, K. L. (2007). Learning about the structure of scales: Adverbial modification and the acquisition of the semantics of gradable adjectives (Doctoral dissertation, Northwestern
University).
Tribushinina, E. (2008). Cognitive reference points: Semantics beyond the prototypes in adjectives of space and colour. Netherlands Graduate School of Linguistics.
Tribushinina, E. (2009). Reference points in linguistic construal: Scalar adjectives revisited.
Studia linguistica, 63(2), 233-260.
88