Explore the vast range of titles available.

People derive contrastive inferences when interpreting adjectives (e.g., inferring that ‘the short pencil’ is being contrasted with a longer one). However, classic eye-tracking studies revealed contrastive inferences with scalar and material adjectives, but not with color adjectives. This was explained as a difference in listeners’ informativity expectations, since color adjectives are often used descriptively (hence not warranting a contrastive interpretation). Here we hypothesized that, beyond these pragmatic factors, perceptual factors (i.e., the relative perceptibility of color, material and scalar contrast) and semantic factors (i.e., the difference between gradable and non-gradable properties) also affect the real-time derivation of contrastive inferences. We tested these predictions in three languages with prenominal modification (English, Hindi, and Hungarian) and found that people derive contrastive inferences for color and scalar adjectives, but not for material adjectives. In addition, the processing of scalar adjectives was more context dependent than that of color and material adjectives, confirming that pragmatic, perceptual and semantic factors affect the derivation of contrastive inferences.

This study examined the impact of first language (L1) on adjective ordering among Saudi English as a Foreign Language (EFL) learners. The main hypothesis posited that the presence of a common adjective ordering convention in both Arabic and English would influence the proficiency and accuracy of Saudi EFL learners in generating this specific ordering in English. To test this hypothesis, 36 Saudi EFL learners representing high and low levels of proficiency were selected. They were instructed to arrange a set of adjectives in three combinations: non-absolute + absolute (NA), absolute + absolute (AA), and non-absolute + non-absolute (NN). Statistical analyses revealed that the performance of the NA combination, which exists in both languages, was superior to the NN and AA combinations for all participants. Additionally, a significant interaction was observed between the participants' proficiency levels and the adjective combinations, with the high-proficiency group outperforming the low-proficiency group in all combinations. These findings suggest that L1 influence may have a role in learning English adjective ordering and emphasize the importance of considering L1 transfer in EFL instruction.

Actualization is traditionally seen as the process following syntactic reanalysis whereby an item's new syntactic status manifests itself in new syntactic behavior. The process is gradual in that some new uses of the reanalyzed item appear earlier or more readily than others. This article accounts for the order in which new uses appear during actualization. Five corpus-based case studies are presented involving reanalysis and actualization in different functional domains of grammar. These include the reanalysis of all but, far from, and Dutch verre van to adverbial downtoners, and the reanalysis of fun and key from nouns to adjectives. It is shown that actualization proceeds from one environment to another on the basis of similarity relations between environments. The similarity relations may involve broad syntactic generalizations but also superficial similarities to existing patterns, including even an item's uses prior to reanalysis. Because actualization is guided by local and global analogies to existing uses, one determinant of the course of actualization is the locus of reanalysis, as it defines the first uses of an item under change, on which subsequent uses can be modeled. It also follows that the course of actualization is both item-specific and language-specific. The findings presented challenge the concept of reanalysis, which appears less abrupt than usually assumed. Further, it is argued that the findings fit best with usage-based models of language, which attribute a prominent role to similarity-based organization in grammar, and in which an item's use can be subject to multiple, potentially conflicting generalizations.

According to a widely held view epistemic justification is a normative notion. According to another widely held assumption, epistemic justification comes in degrees. Given that gradability requires a context-sensitivity that normativity seems to lack, these two assumptions stand in tension. Giving up the assumption of gradability of justification represents a lesser theoretical cost.

I argue that disposition ascriptions—claims like 'the glass is fragile'—are semantically equivalent to possibility claims: they are true when the given object manifests the disposition in at least one of the relevant possible worlds.

This paper addresses a well-known puzzle at the intersection of morphology and syntax: the categorical exclusion of adjectives modified by evaluative morphology from prenominal position in Italian. While Italian allows many adjectives to occur both pre- and postnominally, adjectives like piccolino, ‘little-dim’, are strictly postnominal (cane piccolino, lit. ‘dog little-dim’ vs. *piccolino cane, ‘little-dim dog’), a distribution not fully explained by their proposed predicative or intersective nature. Drawing on degree semantics and trope theory, we argue that this constraint arises from an incompatibility between two distinct interpretive strategies. Prenominal adjectives undergo a syntactically driven semantic shift, whereby the noun triggers a trope-based interpretation of the adjective, redefining the meaning of the A-N complex. In contrast, evaluative morphology operates through a pragmatically driven strategy, contributing speaker-oriented, context-sensitive meaning to the adjective. Crucially, these two strategies are mutually exclusive: an adjective modified by evaluative morphology has already undergone pragmatic reinterpretation and cannot simultaneously participate in the compositional syntactic process required for prenominal placement. This explains why adjectives with evaluative suffixes are excluded from prenominal contexts, despite often yielding intersective interpretations postnominally. Our proposal accounts for this distributional asymmetry without resorting to stipulations and suggests that certain interpretive procedures are not recursively applicable across syntax and pragmatics. Ultimately, this study sheds new light on a principled interface constraint linking syntactic distribution, morphological derivation and pragmatic interpretation.

This article reports on a typological study of the order of demonstrative, numeral, adjective, and noun, based on a sample of 576 languages. I propose a set of five surface principles which interact to predict the relative frequencies of the different orders of these four elements, whereby the more principles an order conforms to, the more frequent it will be. I provide evidence that the relative frequencies of the different orders can only be described and explained in terms of semantic notions of demonstrative, numeral, and adjective, independent of their syntactic realization, and not in terms of syntactic categories. I compare my approach to a generative account of the same phenomenon by Cinque (2005). I argue that my approach accounts for the relative frequencies of the different orders better than Cinque's in a number of respects.

G.E. Moore said that Tightness was obviously a matter of maximising plain goodness. Peter Geach and Judith Thomson disagree. They have both argued that 'good' is not a predicative adjective, but only ever an attributive adjective: just like 'big.' And just as there is no such thing as plain bigness but only ever big for or as a so-and-so, there is also no such thing as plain goodness. They conclude that Moore's goodness is thus a nonsense. However attention has been drawn to a weakness in their arguments. Mahrad Almotahari and Adam Hosein have sought to plug that weakness. If their plug holds, then there is no goodness. Doing most of their work is the following premise: adjective φ is predicative only if it can be used predicatively in 'x is a φ K' otherwise it is attributive. In this paper I argue that this premise is false, that their plug does not hold and that if one is to reject plain goodness it will have to be for other reasons.

Kennedy (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.

This study compares the predictive validity of single-item and multiple-item measures of attitude toward the ad ($A_{Ad}$) and attitude toward the brand ($A_{Brand}$), which are two of the most widely measured constructs in marketing. The authors assess the ability of $A_{Ad}$ to predict $A_{Brand}$ in copy tests of four print advertisements for diverse new products. There is no difference in the predictive validity of the multiple-item and single-item measures. The authors conclude that for the many constructs in marketing that consist of a concrete singular object and a concrete attribute, such as $A_{Ad}$ or $A_{Brand}$, single-item measures should be used.