A gradable approach to dispositions

Philosophical Quarterly

Volumn 57, Issue 226, 2007, Pages 68-75

  Manley, David ^a   Wasserman, Ryan ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 44949254249     PISSN: 00318094     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9213.2007.469.x     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. See D. Lewis, 'Finkish Dispositions', The Philosophical Quarterly, 47 (1997), pp. 143-58
2. repr. in his Papers in Metaphysics and Epistemology (Cambridge UP, 1999), pp. 133-51, at p. 133
3. See C. Martin, 'Dispositions and Conditionals', The Philosophical Quarterly, 44 (1994), pp. 1-8
4. See E. Prior, Dispositions (Aberdeen UP, 1985), pp. 8-19, 45-9
5. M. Johnston, 'How to Speak of the Colors', Philosophical Studies, 68 (1992), pp. 221-63
6. A. Bird, 'Dispositions and Antidotes', The Philosophical Quarterly, 48 (1998), pp. 227-34, at p. 228
7. As far as we know, Smith's example of Z-rays (actually a reverse mask) is the first example of this type in the literature: see A.D. Smith, 'Dispositional Properties', Mind, 86 (1977), pp. 439-45, at p. 440
8. See D. Bolinger, Degree Words (The Hague: Mouton, 1972)
9. M.J. Cresswell, 'The Semantics of Degree', in B. Partee (ed.), Montague Grammar (New York: Academic Press, 1977), pp. 261-92
10. E. Sapir, 'Grading: a Study in Semantics', Philosophy of Science, 11 (1944), pp. 93-116
11. A. von Stechow, 'Comparing Semantic Theories of Comparison', Journal of Semantics, 3 (1984), pp. 1-77
12. For the use of intervals rather than degrees, see R. Schwarzschild and K. Wilkinson, 'Quantifiers in Comparatives: a Semantics of Degree Based on Intervals', Natural Language Semantics, 10 (2002), pp. 1-41
13. For more on invoking comparison classes to understand gradable predicates, see E. Klein, 'A Semantics for Positive and Comparative Adjectives', Linguistics and Philosophy, 4 (1980), pp. 1-45
14. R- Larson, 'Scope and Comparatives', Linguistics and Philosophy, 11 (1988), pp. 1-26
15. P. Ludlow, 'Implicit Comparison Classes', Linguistics and Philosophy, 12 (1989), pp. 519-33
16. The details are more complicated, but scales do seem to be required. See C. Kennedy and L. McNally, 'From Event Structure to Scale Structure', in T. Matthews and D. Strolovitch (eds), Proceedings of SALT IX (Ithaca: CLC Publications, 1999), pp. 163-80
17. Even McKitrick, who criticizes the standard assumption that all dispositions are intrinsic, is open to the intrinsicness of fragility: see J. McKitrick, 'A Case for Extrinsic Dispositions', Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 81 (2003), pp. 155-74, at p. 170. We think the consensus is right when it comes to fragility and many other dispositions
18. See J. Hawthorne, 'Chance and Counterfactuals', Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 70 (2005), pp. 396-405
19. Hence 'fragile' is not an absolute predicate, and does not give rise to special semantic puzzles associated with these. See P. Unger, Ignorance (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1975)
20. and Philosophical Relativity (Minnesota UP, 1984)
21. D. Lewis, 'Scorekeeping in a Language Game', Journal of Philosophical Logic, 8 (1979), pp. 339-59
22. Appeal to context dependence for dispositional terms cannot solve the problems of finks and masks if context dependence operates by ruling out situations which are not salient. On this, see J. Hawthorne and D. Manley, review of Mumford's Dispositions, Noûs, 39 (2005), pp. 179-95, at pp. 181-3