On the psychology of truth-gaps

Abstract. Bonini et al. [2] present psychological data that they take to support an ‘epistemic ’ account of how vague predicates are used in natural language. We argue that their data more strongly supports a ‘gap ’ theory of vagueness, and that their arguments against gap theories are flawed. Additionally, we present more experimental evidence that supports gap theories, and argue for a semantic/pragmatic alternative that unifies super- and subvaluationary approaches to vagueness.