Unruly words: a study of vague language

Abstract

Preface 1. Introduction and Fundamentals 1.1. Whirlwind Tour of Competing Theories of Vagueness 1.2. Initial Observations (1): Blurred Boundaries, Sharp Boundaries, and Stopping Places 1.3. Initial Observations (2): Vagueness and Gradability 1.4. Initial Observations (3): Vagueness and Soriticality 1.5. Initial Observations (4): Vagueness and Context-Sensitivity 1.6. Vagueness and Rule-following 1.7. Two Policies and a Caveat 1.8. Selective Review 1.9. Looking Ahead 2. The In's and Out's of Borderline Cases 2.1. Lay of the Land 2.2. The Standard Analysis 2.3. The Incompatibilist Analysis 2.4. Objections and Replies 2.5. Symmetry, Indeterminacy, Higher-Order Borderlines, Accessibility and Some Advantages of the Incompatibilist Analysis 2.6. Independently Fishy Features of Higher-Order Borderlines 2.7. Selective Review 2.8. Looking ahead. 3. Framework for a Semantics of Vagueness 3.1. Vagueness and Indexicality 3.2. Two Ingredients of Sense for Vague Words 3.3. A Refinement: Contexts of Utterance vs Intended Contexts 3.4. Selective Review 3.5. Looking Ahead 4. The Multiple Range Theory of Vagueness 4.1. Vagueness and Reference 4.2. Why Ranges of Application Are Not Precisifications 4.3. Progress Report and Two Criteria of Vagueness 4.4. Evaluation 4.5. Solving the Sorites 4.6. Verdicts on Some Specific Predicates 4.7. Vagueness, Soriticality, Borderlines, V-index-sensitivity, Gradability, and Indeterminacy: Relatives or Just Friends? 4.8. Selective Review 4.9. Looking Ahead Figures 5. The Competent Use of Vague Words 5.1. A Pragmatic Sorites 5.2. Testing for Hysteresis 5.3. Non-perceptual Hysteresis: Does Our Hypothesis Generalize? 5.4. Meaning and Use: Implementing the Multi-Range Semantics 5.5. An Etymological Speculation 5.6. The Truth About Tolerance 5.7. Looking Back: Rules, Reasons, and the Governing View Figures Appendix Notes Bibliography Index

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 122 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.