Abstract
Recent experiments have shown that naive speakers find borderline contradictions involving vague predicates acceptable. In Cobreros et al. (Journal of Philosophical Logic, 41, 347–385, 2012a) we proposed a pragmatic explanation of the acceptability of borderline contradictions, building on a three-valued semantics. In a reply, Alxatib et al. (Journal of Philosophical Logic, 42, 619–634, 2013) show, however, that the pragmatic account predicts the wrong interpretations for some examples involving disjunction, and propose as a remedy a semantic analysis instead, based on fuzzy logic. In this paper we provide an explicit global pragmatic interpretation rule, based on a somewhat richer semantics, and show that with its help the problem can be overcome in pragmatics after all. Furthermore, we use this pragmatic interpretation rule to define a new (nonmonotonic) consequence-relation and discuss some of its properties.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 375-393 |
| Number of pages | 19 |
| Journal | Journal of Philosophical Logic |
| Volume | 44 |
| Issue number | 4 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 6 Aug 2015 |
| Externally published | Yes |
Keywords
- Non-monotonic logic
- Partial logic
- Pragmatics
- Vagueness
Cite this
- APA
- Author
- BIBTEX
- Harvard
- Standard
- RIS
- Vancouver