Abstract

A well-known problem facing Lasersohn's theory of pragmatic halos is that it fails to predict that the loose contents of negated maximal standard absolute adjectives (e.g. ``not straight'') and of minimal standard absolute adjectives (e.g. ``bent'') are stronger than their literal contents. Recently, Dinges argues that Klecha's optimality-based theory is faced with the same strengthening problem and proposes to solve it by using Hoek's theory of conversational exculpature. This paper argues that the strengthening problem can be better solved by combining Lasersohn's and Klecha's theories after revising each theory slightly: Pace Lasersohn, we do not identify the loose content of a sentence with the disjunction of the values in the sentence's halo. Pace Klecha, we do not hold that the question under discussion (QUD) of a conversation has any sentence content coarsening function. Once these modifications are made to Lasersohn's and Klecha's theories, the relevant loose content of a sentence can be determined based on an optimality-based reasoning about the halos of the speaker's utterance and its alternatives.