Skip to main content

Multidimensionality, Subjectivity and Scales: Experimental Evidence

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Language, Cognition, and Mind ((LCAM,volume 4))

Abstract

This paper investigates the subjective interpretation of the comparative forms of certain gradable adjectives, exploring in particular the hypothesis put forward in several recent works that such ‘ordering subjectivity’ derives from the multidimensional nature of the adjectives in question. Results of an experimental study are presented which demonstrate that ordering subjectivity is more widespread than previously recognized, and that in this respect, gradable adjectives divide into not two but three groups: objective, subjective and mixed. Evidence is also offered that adjectival multidimensionality itself is a heterogenous phenomenon. On the basis of these observations as well as the experimental findings, it is argued that there are two separate sources of ordering subjectivity: multidimensionality and judge dependence. This proposal is formalized within a semantic framework in which gradable adjectives lexicalize families of measure functions indexed to contexts and in some cases judges.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   79.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    In work on the semantics of gradable adjectives, it is now common to distinguish between context-dependent relative gradable adjectives and (more) context-independent absolute gradable adjectives (Kennedy and McNally 2005; Kennedy 2007). This distinction is proposed to derive from the structure of the scale lexicalized by the adjective: members of the absolute class have scales with maximum and/or minimum points, with these providing the standard for the adjective in its positive form, while members of the relative class have scales that are open on both ends, necessitating a contextual standard. A secondary objective of the present experiment was to explore the correlation between subjectivity and the relative/absolute distinction. Findings in this area are reported in Solt (2016), and due to space considerations will not be discussed here.

  2. 2.

    Which quantifiers are felicitous, and whether an exception phrase is possible with an adjective in its positive or negated form, depend to some extent on whether the adjective is conjunctive or disjunctive. I will attempt as much as possible to abstract away from these details here.

  3. 3.

    For myself, examples of this sort are quite bad; a reviewer, however, found them more acceptable. Such between-speaker variation is itself indicative of the difficulty in classifying an adjective as multidimensional versus unidimensional.

  4. 4.

    I thank the reviewers for pointing out the need to clarify this point.

  5. 5.

    The pair flat/bumpy was not included in the present experiment, but I hypothesize that they would behave similarly to pairs such as smooth/rough; as bumpy provides a particularly nice example, I allow myself the liberty of using it here.

  6. 6.

    I thank an anonymous reviewer for pointing out this example.

References

  • Bartsch, R. (1984). The structure of word meanings: Polysemy, metaphor, metonymy. In F. Landman & F. Veltman (Eds.), Varieties of formal semantics (pp. 25–54). Dordrecht: Foris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bartsch, R. (1986). Context-dependent interpretations of lexical items. In J. Groenendijk, D. de Jongh, & M. Stokhof (Eds.), Foundations of pragmatics and lexical semantics, GRASS 7 (pp. 1–26). Dordrecht: Foris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bartsch, R., & Vennemann, T. (1972). The grammar of relative adjectives and of comparison. Linguistische Berichte, 20, 19–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bates, D. M., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2014). lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using ‘Eigen’ and S4. R package version 1.1-7. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lme4.

  • Bierwisch, M. (1989). The semantics of gradation. In M. Bierwisch & E. Lang (Eds.), Dimensional adjectives: Grammatical structure and conceptual interpretation (pp. 71–261). Berlin: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Bylinina, L. (2014). The grammar of standards: Judge-dependence, purpose-relativity, and comparison classes in degree constructions. Dissertation, Utrecht University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bylinina, L. (2017). Judge-dependence in degree constructions. Journal of Semantics, 34(2), 291–331.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, C. M. (1980). Effects of solution viscosity on perceived saltiness and sweetness. Perception and Psychophysics, 28(4), 347–353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cresswell, M. J. (1977). The semantics of degree. In B. H. Partee (Ed.), Montague Grammar (pp. 261–292). New York: Academic Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hare, R. M. (1952). The language of morals. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heim, I. (2000). Degree operators and scope. In J. Brendan & T. Matthews (Eds.), Proceedings of the 10th Semantics and Linguistic Theory Conference (SALT 10) (pp. 40–64). Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hothorn, T., Bretz, F., & Westfall, P. (2008). Simultaneous inference in general parametric models. Biometrical Journal, 50(3), 346–363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaiser, E., & Lee, J. H. (2017a). Predicates of personal taste and multidimensional adjectives: An experimental investigation. In Proceedings of the 35th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL35). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaiser, E., & Lee, J. H. (2017b). Experience matters: A psycholinguistic investigation of predicates of personal taste. In D. Burgdorf, J. Collard, S. Maspong, & B. Stefánsdóttir (Eds.), Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory 27 (SALT 27). Washington, DC: Linguistic Society of America.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kamp, H. (1975). Two theories about adjectives. In E. L. Keenan (Ed.), Formal semantics of natural language (pp. 121–155). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy, C. (1997). Projecting the adjective: The syntax and semantics of gradability and comparison. Dissertation, University of California at Santa Cruz.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy, C. (2007). Vagueness and grammar: The semantics of relative and absolute gradable adjectives. Linguistics and Philosophy, 30(1), 1–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy, C. (2013). Two sources of subjectivity: Qualitative assessment and dimensional uncertainty. Inquiry, 56(2–3), 258–277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy, C., & McNally, L. (2005). Scale structure, degree modification and the semantics of gradable predicates. Language, 81(2), 345–381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy, C., & Willer, M. (2016). Subjective attitudes and counterstance contingency. In M. Moroney, C.-R. Little, J. Collard, & D. Burgdorf (Eds.), Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory 26 (SALT26) (pp. 913–933). Washington, DC: Linguistic Society of America.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klein, E. (1980). A semantics for positive and comparative adjectives. Linguistics and Philosophy, 4(1), 1–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kölbel, M. (2004). Faultless disagreement. In Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society (Vol. 104, pp. 53–73). New Series.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krifka, M. (1989). Nominal reference, temporal constitution and quantification in event semantics. In R. Bartsch, J. van Benthem, & P. van Emde Boas (Eds.), Semantics and contextual expression (pp. 75–115). Dordrecht: Foris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Landman, F. (1989). Groups II. Linguistics and Philosophy, 12(6), 723–744.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lasersohn, P. (2005). Context dependence, disagreement, and predicates of personal taste. Linguistics and Philosophy, 28(6), 643–686.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lasersohn, P. (2009). Relative truth, speaker commitment, and control of implicit arguments. Synthese, 166(2), 359–374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lassiter, D. (2011). Measurement and modality: The scalar basis of modal semantics. Dissertation, New York University.

    Google Scholar 

  • McNally, L., & Stojanovic, I. (2017). Aesthetic adjectives. In J. O. Young (Ed.), Semantics of aesthetic judgment (pp. 17–37). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Moltmann, F. (2010). Relative truth and the first person. Philosophical Studies, 150(2), 187–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pflaum, T., Konitzer, K., Hofmann, T., & Koehler, P. (2013). Influence of texture on the perception of saltiness in wheat bread. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 61(45), 10649–10658.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • R Core Team. (2015). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R foundation for statistical computing, Vienna, Austria. http://www.R-project.org/.

  • Sæbø, K. J. (2009). Judgment ascriptions. Linguistics and Philosophy, 32(4), 327–352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sassoon, G. W. (2007). Vagueness, gradability and typicality, a comprehensive semantic analysis. Dissertation, Tel Aviv University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sassoon, G. W. (2010). Measurement theory in linguistics. Synthese, 174(1), 151–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sassoon, G. W. (2011). Adjectival vs. nominal categorization processes: The rule vs. similarity hypothesis. Belgium Journal of Linguistics, 25, 104–147.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sassoon, G. W. (2012). The double nature of negative antonymy. In A. Aguilar Guevara, A. Chernilovskaya, & R. Nouwen (Eds.), Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 16. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics (pp. 543–556).

    Google Scholar 

  • Sassoon, G. W. (2013). A typology of multidimensional adjectives. Journal of Semantics, 30(3), 335–380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sassoon, G. W. (2015). A degree-approach account of multidimensional gradability. Unpublished manuscript, Bar-Ilan University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Solt, S. (2016). Ordering subjectivity and the absolute/relative distinction. In N. Bade, P. Berezovskaya, & A. Schöller (Eds.), Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung (Vol. 20, pp. 676–693).

    Google Scholar 

  • Stephenson, T. (2007). Judge dependence, epistemic modals, and predicates of personal taste. Linguistics and Philosophy, 30(4), 487–525.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stojanovic, I. (2007). Talking about taste: Disagreement, implicit arguments, and relative truth. Linguistics and Philosophy, 30(6), 691–706.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suzuki, A. H., Zhong, H., Lee, J., & Martini, S. (2014). Effect of lipid content on saltiness perception: A psychophysical study. Journal of Sensory Studies, 29(6), 404–412.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Umbach, C. (2016). Evaluative propositions and subjective judgments (pp. 127–168). In C. Meier & J. van Wijnbergen-Huitink (Eds.), Subjective meaning: Alternatives to relativism. Berlin: de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

I would like to express my gratitude to the editors of this volume Elena Castroviejo-Miró, Louise McNally and Galit Sassoon, as well as three anonymous reviewers, whose insightful comments and suggestions on earlier versions have led to a much improved paper. Thanks also to Carla Umbach, Nat Hansen, Kjell Johan Sæbø and the audiences at ExpGrad, SuB20 and the ZAS for very helpful discussion, and to Nadja Reinhold and Lisa Reimann for assistance with the experimental research. All errors are of course my own. This work was supported by the German Science Foundation (DFG) under grant SO1157/1-1.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stephanie Solt .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Appendix

Appendix

This appendix provides the full stimuli (critical items) used in the experiment.

List 1

A: Anna’s apartment is dirtier than Paul’s.

 

B: No, Paul’s place is dirtier.

 

A: Frank is shorter than Jimmy.

 

B: No, Jimmy is the shorter one.

 

A: John and Fred look similar but John is a little taller than Fred.

 

B: No! Fred is the taller one of the two.

 

A: Lea and Marie are both sad but Marie is sadder.

 

B: No, Lea is sadder.

 

A: Lilian’s car is newer than Noemi’s car.

 

B: No, Noemi’s is definitely the more recent one.

 

A: My painting is prettier than yours.

 

B: No! My painting is definitely prettier than yours.

 

A: Susan just got out of the water, but her hair is already drier than mine.

 

B: No, it’s not - your hair is definitely drier than Susan’s.

 

A: The green towel is wetter than the red one.

 

B: No, the red towel is wetter.

 

A: This building is older than the building Julia lives in.

 

B: No, Julia’s building is older.

 

A: The mug is cleaner than the spoon.

 

B: The spoon is cleaner than the mug.

 

A: This cat is happier than that dog.

 

B: No, the dog is the happier one of them.

 

A: Those sneakers are uglier than the Converse sneakers you tried on earlier.

 

B: No, the Converse sneakers were uglier.

List 2

A: Can I borrow your pencil? Mine is duller than the one you have.

 

B: No, my pencil is even duller than yours.

 

A: Caryl and Tina both have blond hair, but Caryl’s is lighter than Tina’s.

 

B: No, Tina’s hair is definitely lighter than Caryl’s.

 

A: Give those kids the green ball to play with, it’s softer than the red one.

 

B: No, the red ball is softer.

 

A: I would rather use the yellow pillow—it’s harder than the white one.

 

B: No, the white pillow is the harder one of the two.

 

A: Math is easier than Geography.

 

B: Geography is a lot easier than Math!

 

A: Take the red knife, it’s sharper than the one you’re using.

 

B: No, the knife I have now is sharper than the red one.

 

A: The fence in front of Mr. Harington’s house is straighter than the one in front of Mr. Rave’s house.

 

B: No, Mr. Rave’s fence is straighter.

 

A: The old Ipod Touch 4G is more expensive than the new Ipod Touch 5G.

 

B: No, the new one is the more expensive device.

 

A: The second line on that graph is more curved than the first one.

 

B: No, the first line is more curved than the second.

 

A: The walls in the dining room are darker than the walls in the living room.

 

B: No, the walls in the living room are darker.

 

A: This small piece of paper is smoother than that big piece of paper.

 

B: No, the big piece is smoother.

 

A: This stone right in front of us is rougher than that one in the back.

 

B: No, the stone in the back is rougher.

List 3

A: Frank is shorter than his friend Jimmy.

 

B: No, Jimmy is the shorter one.

 

A: John and Fred look similar but John is taller than Fred.

 

B: No, Fred is the taller one of the two.

 

A: Lillian and Nicole both have the same kind of cellphone, but Lillian’s is newer than Nicole’s.

 

B: No, Nicole’s phone is newer than Lillian’s.

 

A: Look—Tommy’s shirt is dirtier than the one his little brother Billy is wearing.

 

B: No, Blly’s shirt is dirtier than Tommy’s.

 

A: My apartment building is older than the building Julia lives in.

 

B: No, Julia’s building is older.

 

A: Susan just got out of the water, but her bathing suit is already drier than mine.

 

B: No, it’s not—your bathing suit is drier than Susan’s.

 

A: The green towel on the hook is wetter than the blue one.

 

B: No, the blue towel is wetter.

 

A: The lecture we heard last week was more boring than today’s lecture.

 

B: No, today’s lecture was more boring.

 

A: The mug you just handed me is cleaner than the one on the counter.

 

B: No, the one on the counter is cleaner.

 

A: The necklace Susan is wearing today is uglier than the one she had on yesterday.

 

B: No, the one she was wearing yesterday was uglier.

 

A: The program we watched about India was more interesting than the one about Japan.

 

B: No, the program about Japan was the more interesting of the two.

 

A: The vase on the table is more beautiful than the one on the bookshelf.

 

B: No, the vase on the bookshelf is more beautiful.

List 4

A: I just read the essay John wrote and it is worse than Bill’s.

 

B: No it isn’t. The one Bill wrote is worse.

 

A: Look at Sue’s new bike—it’s better than Anne’s.

 

B: No, Anne’s bike is better.

 

A: The cream cake is tastier than the chocolate cookies.

 

B: No, the chocolate cookies are tastier.

 

A: The math professor is more intelligent than the physics professor.

 

B: No, I disagree. The physics professor is the more intelligent one.

 

A: The movie theater is emptier today than it was yesterday.

 

B: No it wasn’t. It was emptier yesterday.

 

A: The roller coaster was more fun than the ferris wheel.

 

B: No it wasn’t! The ferris wheel was more fun.

 

A: The vegetable soup is saltier than the chicken soup.

 

B: No, the chicken soup is saltier.

 

A: The wine bottle is fuller than the champagne bottle.

 

B: No, the champagne bottle is fuller.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Solt, S. (2018). Multidimensionality, Subjectivity and Scales: Experimental Evidence. In: Castroviejo, E., McNally, L., Weidman Sassoon, G. (eds) The Semantics of Gradability, Vagueness, and Scale Structure. Language, Cognition, and Mind, vol 4. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-77791-7_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-77791-7_3

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-77790-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-77791-7

  • eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics