8/9/2019 18_ Katz- ATD Modifiers

1/2

Attitudes toward degrees

Graham Katz

University of Osnabrck

In recent years the fine structure of gradable predication has been subject to detailedscrutiny, and there appear to be clear results concerning the lexical-semantic structures

underlying much of its subtle variation (Kennedy, 1999; Kennedy 2001; Kennedy and

McNally 2004). This work has provided support for both Cresswells (1977) proposal

that gradable predicates be treated as relations between individuals and degrees on a

scale and Kleins (1980) suggestion that modifiers of these predicates be treated

specifying this degree or as conjunctive predication applied to the degree (as indicated

in (1) and (2), respectively).

(1) a. John is six feet tall. (2) a. John is very tall.

b. size(6ft)(john) b.d [high(d) & size(d)(x)]

In this paper I will be concerned with a class of modifiers that requires a somewhat

more complex treatment. These modifiers, the attitude toward degree (ATD)modifiers, are used to indicate not just where a degree sits on a scale, but also the

attitude that the speaker has toward the fact that this is the case. Examples of ATD

modifiers are the uses ofsurprisingly and uncomfortably illustrated in (3) and (4).

(3) a. Svetlana was surprisingly late. (4) a. His apartment was uncomfortably small.

b. Steve is surprisingly tall. b. The police were uncomfortably close.

c. The pool is surprisingly empty. c. The backpack was uncomfortably full.

ATD modifiers further examples beingfrustratingly, embarrassingly, and

astoundingly can appear wherever scalar degree modifiers such as very can appear. As

Cresswell (1984) noted, they appear to attribute to the speaker an attitude toward a

degree. An example such as (3a) appears to mean something like the degree to which

Svetlana was late was surprising.

ATD modifiers exhibit a number of puzzling semantic properties, which it is the goal of

this paper to account for. First, ATDs exhibit an attitude dependent selection effect.

For example, while both empty andfullindicate degrees on the same scale (the scale of

fullness), in a context in which we expect the pool to be full to a certain degree (say

80%) but in which it is less full then expected (say 50%), we must indicate our surprise

using the negative polarempty, as in (3c), while if the pool is 95% full (i.e. more thenexpected) then we must use the positive polar adjective on this scale,full, to express our

surprise. Secondly, the ATD modified predicate sometimes entails the simpleunmodified predicate, but not always. So while (3c) certainly doesnt entail that the pool

is empty, (4a) does appear to entail that the apartment is small. The goal of this paper is

to provide an treatment of ATD modification that accounts for these properties.

I claim that, in contrast to simple degree modification, degree predication involves

universal quantification. ATD modifiers, by nature of their lexical semantics, predicate

that the attitude indicated holds not just of a particular degree, but all other degrees

more extreme on the indicated scale. The analysis of (3b), then, is (7).

(7) d [size(d)(steve) & d [d > d surprising(size(d)(steve))]]

Furthermore, the polarity of the predicate indicates toward which extremity the

comparison goes, so the interpretation of (3c) is (8).

(8) d [fullness(d)(pool) & d [d < d surprising(

fullness(d)(pool))]]

8/9/2019 18_ Katz- ATD Modifiers

2/2

Degree predicates thus make use of similar aspects of the scale structures as do

comparatives.

Given the characterization of scalar predication suggested by Kennedy and McNally

(2004), in which predicates are distinguished on the basis of the kinds of scale and the

kinds of standards of comparison they are associated as in (9), a straightforward accountof the selection properties of ATDs can be given.

(9) Scale: open: tallclosed: empty, full

Standard: contextual: tallminimal: empty maximal:fullIt is the joint monotonicity properties of ATD modifiers and scalar predicates that force

us to choose the appropriate polar predicate. Furthermore, whether the STD modifier

entails the unmodified predicate is determined by the type of standard associated with

the predicate. Predicates with absolute standards either always (in the case of minimal

standards) or never (in the case of maximal standards) give rise to the entailment to the

unmodified, while predicates with contextual standards typically give rise to such an

implicature (as in 3b), but this can be suspended, as in (10).

(9) Peter is surprisingly tall (given that he was undernourished as a child).In sum, attitude toward degree modification involves quantification over degrees, not

simply direct predication, and it is this, combined with the semantics of degrees

predicates themselves, that accounts for the variety of readings associated with ATD

modified predicates.

References

Cresswell, M. J. 1977. The semantics of degree. In Montague grammar, ed. Barbara

Partee, 261292. New York: Academic Press.

Cresswell, M. J. 1984. Comments on von Stechow. Journal of Semantics 3.

Kennedy, Christopher. 1999. Projecting the adjective: The syntax and semantics of

gradability and comparison. New York: Garland. (1997 UCSC Ph.D. thesis).

Kennedy, Christopher. 2001. Polar opposition and the ontology of degrees. Linguistics

& Philosophy 24:3370.

Kennedy, Christopher, and Louise McNally. 2004. Scale structure and the semantic

typology of gradable predicates. Ms.

Klein, E. 1980. A semantics for positive and comparative adjectives. Linguistics &

Philosophy 4: 1-45.