# Explaining vague language

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.18154 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.18154/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 1 of its 49 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 28 Apr 2024.

## Builds on (most cited first, 1 of 1)

- [On the Optimality of Vagueness: "Around", "Between", and the Gricean Maxims](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2008.11841/) (2020)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Why is language vague? Vagueness may be explained and rationalized if it can be shown that vague language is more useful to speaker and hearer than precise language. In a well-known paper, Lipman proposes a game-theoretic account of vagueness in terms of mixed strategy that leads to a puzzle: vagueness cannot be strictly better than precision at equilibrium. More recently, 'Egr'e, Spector, Mortier and Verheyen have put forward a Bayesian account of vagueness establishing that using vague words can be strictly more informative than using precise words. This paper proposes to compare both results and to explain why they are not in contradiction. Lipman's definition of vagueness relies exclusively on a property of signaling strategies, without making any assumptions about the lexicon, whereas 'Egr'e et al.'s involves a layer of semantic content. We argue that the semantic account of vagueness is needed, and more adequate and explanatory of vagueness.