SUMMARY

CHAPTER II: ADJECTIVE MEANING

Cruse (2000: 289) notes that adjective meanings are often one-dimensional.
Thickness concerns only a minor dimension, not length or width; for speed, one can ignore
temperature, height, age; and so forth.
Word senses affect the entailments that a sentence carries. Entailments are propositions that follow
when a given proposition is true.
SYNONYMY
Example:
a. Andy is impudent.
b. Andy is cheeky.
c. (2.2a ⇒ 2.2b) & (2.2b ⇒ 2.2a)
Synonymy is equivalence of sense. Sociolinguistic differences are not relevant, because they do
not affect literal meaning.
The nouns mother, mom and mum are synonyms (of each other). When a single word in a sentence
is replaced by a synonym – a word equivalent in sense – then the literal meaning of the sentence is
not changed: My mother’s/mum’s/mom’s family name was Christie
Sentences with the same meaning are called paraphrases.
Paraphrase between two sentences depends on entailment, since it is defined as a two-way
entailment between the sentences. The main points of the previous paragraph are that entailments
indicate sense relations between words, and sense relations indicate the entailment potentials of
words.
Examples:
1. silent noiseless
2. brave courageous
3. polite courteous
4. rich wealthy
Synonymy is not restricted to pairs of words.

COMPLEMENTARIES
Adjectives that divide their relevant domains sharply and without residue.
Example:
a. Maude’s is the same as yours.
b. Maude’s is different from yours.
c. (2.7a ⇒ NOT2.7b) & (NOT2.7a ⇒ 2.7b) & (2.7b ⇒ NOT2.7a) & (NOT2.7b ⇒ 2.7a)
(2.7c) provides evidence for two paraphrase pairs (sentences with the same meaning, or – another
way of stating it – sentences that express the same proposition
For complementaries the example frame changed slightly between. These are differences brought
about by details of English grammar (the same as and different from).
With complementaries we get entailments from affirmative sentences (the ones lacking NOT in
(2.7c)) to negative sentences (the ones with NOT in 2.7c) and back again from negative to
affirmative = 4 entailments.
ANTONYMY

Example:
a. The street was noisy.
b. The street was silent.
c. (2.8a ⇒ NOT2.8b) & (2.8b ⇒ NOT2.8a)
d. (NOT2.8a ⇒ 2.8b) & (NOT 2.8b ⇒ 2.8a)
Antonymy is defined by a pattern of entailments such as the one in (2.8c): if we know that (2.8a) is
true, then we can be sure that, with regard to the same (part of) the same street at the same time,
(2.8b) is false, or equivalently that the negation of (2.8b) is true (2.8a ⇒ NOT2.8b). And if we know
that (2.8b) is true, it follows – again provided that we keep the place and time constant – that the
street was not noisy (NOT2.8a). Both of the entailments shown in (2.8c) go from an affirmative
sentence to a negative one.
Examples of antonyms
humble vain/proud/boastful
rare frequent/common
patient impatient
brave/courageous cowardly
early late
CONVERSES
The comparative forms of an antonym pair have an interesting sense relation between them,
called converseness.
Example:
a. California is richer than some countries.
b. Some countries are poorer than California.
c. (2.10a ⇒ 2.10b) & (2.10b ⇒ 2.10a)
two-way entailment - This makes (2.10a) and (2.10b) paraphrases of each other.
Not only has richer been replaced by poorer in going from (2.10a) to (2.10b), but the noun phrases
California and some countries have been exchanged. Converses are thus a species of synonym
that requires reordering of noun phrases.

Meaning postulates were developed by the philosopher Rudolf Carnap (1891–1970) as a way of
integrating into logical systems the entailment information that comes from word meanings.
(2.13)
Rupert is a friend of mine
and if he is a friend of mine then I am willing to lend him my bicycle.
Therefore, I am willing to lend Rupert my bicycle.
The reasoning is valid simply because it fits a particular pattern that always yields true conclusions
if the premises (initial statements) are true. The pattern is set out in (2.14). (2.14)
p
& (if p then q)
Therefore, q
When both of the premises – in the first two lines – are true, then the conclusion must be true.
A meaning postulate is needed between p and ‘therefore q’ before the reasoning in (2.16) can be
seen to be valid. The particular meaning postulate required for (2.16) has to represent a linguistic
fact about English: that ‘when any thing, x, is bigger than some other thing, y, then y is necessarily
smaller than x; and vice versa’. This is, in effect, the information summarized in the sense relation
of converseness.
GRADABILITY
Many adjectives are gradable, which is to say that the language has ways of expressing different
levels or degrees of the qualities that they denote.
The adjectives in the examples given in (2.18) are all members of antonym pairs.
The members of complementary pairs (same–different, right–wrong and so on) are resistant to
grading.
Superlatives (such as best and fastest) and covert superlatives (such as freezing) denote extreme
ends of scales.

ADJECTIVES MODIFYING NOUNS

The intersection of the two ovals encompasses things that are included in both sets, things that are
green and also bicycles. This is a satisfactory enough account of how these two meanings are put
together. Adjectives that fit this scheme of interpretation are called intersective adjectives.
Some adjectives are straightforwardly non-intersective: former, imaginary, fake.
Two further types of non-intersective modification will be mentioned here. One class arises from
what can be called relative adjectives.
The adjective is interpreted relative to the norms of the entities denoted by the noun.
There is an ambiguity if the same adjective could also be used to describe the nature of people as
people (the best politician could be understood as the most virtuous one).