Logicians have, by and large, engaged in the convenient fiction that sentences of natural languages (at least declarative sentences) are either true or false or, at worst, lack a truth value, or have a third value often interpreted as ‘nonsense’. And most contemporary linguists who have thought seriously about semantics, especially formal semantics, have largely shared this fiction, primarily for lack of a sensible alternative. Yet students of language, especially psychologists and linguistic philosophers, have long been attuned to the fact that natural language concepts have vague boundaries and fuzzy edges and that, consequently, natural language sentences will very often be neither true, nor false, nor nonsensical, but rather true to a certain extent and false to a certain extent, true in certain respects and false in other respects.
[1]
Alfred Tarski,et al.
Some theorems about the sentential calculi of Lewis and Heyting
,
1948,
The Journal of Symbolic Logic.
[2]
M. Slote.
The Theory of Important Criteria
,
1966
.
[3]
Van Fraassen,et al.
Formal semantics and logic
,
1971
.
[4]
Lotfi A. Zadeh,et al.
Quantitative fuzzy semantics
,
1971,
Inf. Sci..
[5]
Lauri Karttunen,et al.
Some observations on factivity
,
1971
.
[6]
E. Rosch.
ON THE INTERNAL STRUCTURE OF PERCEPTUAL AND SEMANTIC CATEGORIES1
,
1973
.