Negotiating Taste

Barker, Chris

doi:10.1080/0020174x.2013.784482

Cited by 62 publications

(46 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The bifurcated perspective on subjectivity developed here is drastically different from the one advanced by Barker (2013), who aims to bring all subjectivity into the metalinguistic fold. Barker (2013: 250) writes of taste predicates that they involve "norms for which certain aspects of an object are relevant for the judgment in question, .…”

Section: Subjectivity Metalinguistic and Notmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…One of Barker's (2013) goals in proposing that all subjectivity is metalinguistic is to explore the possibility of accounting for subjectivity without resort to a relativist treatment like that of Lasersohn 2005. I have little to add to what others have said on this score, but I believe that Bouchard (2012), in weighing considerations from the syntax-semantics interface, makes a strong case against the contextualist account of Saebø 2009 and in favor of relativism (see section 2.2).…”

Section: Subjectivity Metalinguistic and Notmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…I go on to show that Bouchard's account, on which find presupposes the contingency of its subjective propositional complement, is on the right track but fails to distinguish adequately between the two types of subjectivity mentioned above. I propose instead to adapt Barker's (2002) dynamic framework for vagueness to the analysis of taste predicates, though my proposal differs in important ways from Barker's (2013) own adaptation of his 2002 framework. My answer to the question posed above is that find requires a context that supports nonvacuous judge-dependent descriptive entailments (in the sense of Barker 2002) in its complement; that is, find is used to make assertions about taste.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In section 3, I introduce Barker's dynamic framework and show how it allows us to capture distinctions between find and the closely related consider, while remaining consonant with the presuppositional facts discussed by Bouchard (2012). Finally, in section 4 I offer some thoughts on the grammatical and ontological status of taste judgments, arguing that they must be treated as facts about the world and not merely as objects of metalinguistic negotiation, contra Barker 2013 andKennedy 2013.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

The dynamics of subjectivity

Fleisher

2013

SALT

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

I adapt the dynamic framework for vagueness of Barker 2002 to the analysis of subjective taste predicates. I argue, following Kennedy 2013, that there are two qualitatively distinct types of subjectivity in natural language, which I call mapping subjectivity and (vague) standards subjectivity, and that the matrix predicate find is sensitive to the distinction between them. Novel to the present analysis is the proposal that find requires not just a complement that supports mapping subjectivity, but also a context that supports nonvacuous entailments about those scalar mappings. I part ways from Kennedy and from Barker 2013 in treating mapping subjectivity as a fact of the world, unassimilable to the metalinguistic variety of subjectivity associated with vague standards.

show abstract

Section: Subjectivity Metalinguistic and Notmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Subjectivity Metalinguistic and Notmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The dynamics of subjectivity

Fleisher

2013

SALT

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In section 7, I give some reason to believe that the data can be generated for a much wider range of expressions than gradable adjectives. In section 8, I contrast the account of section 6 with another (put forward by Barker (2013) and Kennedy (2013)) with which it might, but should not, be confused.…”

Section: In This Interpretationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Elaboration and intuitions of disagreement

Davies

2016

Philos Stud

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Mark Richard argues for truth-relativism about claims made using gradable adjectives. He argues that truth-relativism is the best explanation of two kinds of linguistic data, which I call: true cross-contextual reports and infelicitous denials of conflict. Richard claims that such data are generated by an example that he discusses at length. However, the consensus is that these linguistic data are illusory because they vanish when elaborations are added to examples of the same kind as Richard's original. In this paper I defend the reality of Richard's data. I show that, in trying to make their point, Richard's critics have focused upon examples that are similar in some respects to Richard's original but which lack a crucial feature of that original. When we ensure that this feature is in place, elaborations which make the data vanish are not possible. Richard's critics therefore fail to show that the data generated by Richard's original example are illusory.

show abstract

Implicit Arguments

Bhatt

Pancheva

2017

The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Syntax, Second Edition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This chapter surveys the environments which have been claimed to involve implicit arguments and raises questions concerning the formal status of these entities. The conclusion is that implicit arguments do not form a unified class, varying on features such as the ability to bind and to control, and their quantificational force. The chapter focuses on the diagnostics that are used to motivate and identify implicit arguments and how one might distinguish between syntactically represented implicit arguments and implicit arguments as mere semantic entailments.

show abstract

Negotiating Taste

Cited by 62 publications

References 15 publications

The dynamics of subjectivity

The dynamics of subjectivity

Elaboration and intuitions of disagreement

Implicit Arguments

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About