Measurement theory in linguistics

Sassoon, Galit W.

doi:10.1007/s11229-009-9687-5

Cited by 41 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It is these kinds of impossibilities that explain what prevents weights and heights from being ordered. In the future, it may be interesting to consider the development of measurement systems (Díez 1997) and their role in natural language semantics (Sassoon 2010, van Rooij 2011) from the reductionist perspective described here.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Degrees and segments

Schwarzschild

2015

SALT

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

I make two related proposals, one about directed scale segments and the other about the nature of degrees. Bale (2007Bale ( , 2011 argued that degrees should be analyzed as sets of individuals and that degree arguments are created in the syntax from relational predicates. Schwarz (2010) showed that Bale's construction runs into problems when the relational predicate is complex, consisting of an LF constituent that contains more than just a gradable adjective. I modify Bale's proposal so that it overcomes Schwarz's objection. But first I propose a semantics for comparatives based on quantification over directed scale segments, triples consisting of two degrees and a measure function. The modification of Bale's proposal depends upon this. Segments are of independent interest as they permit a conjunctive semantics for extended adjectival phrases, the way events do for verb phrases. Potential benefits of 'degree-conjunctivism' are explored.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Degrees and segments

Schwarzschild

2015

SALT

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Beyond this, while we found no role for ordinal scales for the adjectives we tested, perhaps other adjective classes, or other forms than the positive, have semantics based on such scales. Particularly interesting are evaluative adjectives like beautiful and intelligent, and emotion words like happy, as these provided the original impetus for the derived degree approach (Cresswell 1977), and there is little prima facie evidence that their underlying scales are anything more than ordinal in level (though see Sassoon 2010 for an alternate view). Here, there are some methodological challenges: it is quite difficult to find examples of adjectives without common numerical units, but for which the stimuli can nonetheless be manipulated in regular increments (as for instance our dark stimuli involved regular increments of RGB value).…”

Section: Conclusion and General Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Experimenting with Degree

Solt

Gotzner

2012

SALT

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Semantic theories differ in the role they assume for degrees in the interpretation of gradable adjectives, and in the assumptions they make about the nature of degrees and the structure of the scales they comprise. We report on two experiments investigating speakers' use of gradable adjectives across varying contexts, with the goal of gaining insight into the nature of the degree ontology underlying their semantics. We find that the truth conditions for the positive form must be stated in terms of degrees rather than rankings of individuals, and further that the relevant scale structure is one where distances between scale points are meaningful, and not an ordinal scale derived from an ordering relation on a comparison class. We also find no evidence that scale structure depends on the presence or absence of a corresponding system of numerical measures.

show abstract

“…We could say that 'meter' is completely determinate, but in reality 'meter' is indeterminate. That seems strange especially if 'in reality' 45 See Kennedy and McNally (2005a); see also Krifka (1989), Schwartzchild (2005) Kennedy (2007), Sassoon (2010) and van Rooij (2011). 46 I am not going to cover the debate about these responses; see Fine (2001) for discussion.…”

Section: Measurement and Languagementioning

confidence: 99%

On the indeterminacy of the meter

Scharp

2017

Synthese

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the International System of Units (SI), 'meter' is defined in terms of seconds and the speed of light, and 'second' is defined in terms of properties of cesium 133 atoms. I show that one consequence of these definitions is that: if there is a minimal length (e.g., Planck length), then the chances that 'meter' is completely determinate are only 1 in 21,413,747. Moreover, we have good reason to believe that there is a minimal length. Thus, it is highly probable that 'meter' is indeterminate. If the meter is indeterminate, then any unit in the SI system that is defined in terms of the meter is indeterminate as well. This problem affects most of the familiar derived units in SI. As such, it is highly likely that indeterminacy pervades the SI system. The indeterminacy of the meter is compared and contrasted with emerging literature on indeterminacy in measurement locutions (as in Eran Tal's recent argument that measurement units are vague in certain ways). Moreover, the indeterminacy of the meter has ramifications for the metaphysics of measurement (e.g., problems for widespread assumptions about the nature of conventionality, as in Theodore Sider's Writing the Book of the World) and the semantics of measurement locutions (e.g., undermining the received view that measurement phrases are absolutely precise as in Christopher Kennedy's and Louise McNally's semantics for gradable adjectives). Finally, it is shown how to redefine 'meter' and 'second' to completely avoid the indeterminacy.

show abstract

Measurement theory in linguistics

Cited by 41 publications

References 35 publications

Degrees and segments

Degrees and segments

Experimenting with Degree

On the indeterminacy of the meter

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About