Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that Blocking this inference requires denying that superlative predication entails base predication, which collapses ordinary semantic compositionality.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Semantic compositionality concerns how complex meanings are built; it doesn't require every entailment relation hold between morphological variants.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Superlatives can be semantically compositional (built from relational and quantificational structure) without 'tallest' entailing the base 'tall'.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Context-dependent or nonmonotonic semantics allows compositionality to survive failures of classical entailment relations.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Semantic compositionality requires that superlatives like 'tallest' systematically derive from base predicates like 'tall'.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
If 'X is the tallest' doesn't entail 'X is tall,' then the superlative meaning becomes semantically opaque and independent.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Language learning and use depend on productive rules connecting morphologically related terms; blocking this entailment breaks that system.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Next step
Based on where you are in your exploration
Strongest counterpoint
Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.