In this paper, I will outline a theory of gradation1 that builds upon quite a number of previous analyses, preserving as far as possible the concepts that have already been clarified, but modifying the structure of earlier proposals in crucial respects. The reason for adding a new theory to the ones already existing is twofold: (a) The new theory accounts for a number of relevant facts that have systematically been ignored by earlier analyses. (b) It relates these facts to those already analysed in a way which does not merely give a descriptive account, but rather an explanation in terms of a few underlying conditions from which the whole range of facts follow in a natural way. A detailed discussion of the various analyses proposed so far would by far exceed the limits set for the present paper.2 1 will instead simply list, for the sake of preliminary orientation, the main points that the present theory shares with some or all of its predecessors, and those in which it differs from them. In accordance with other approaches, I will make the following assumptions: (i) The Positive of relative adjectives must be analysed in close connection with the Comparative, the Equative, and a number of related constructions. More specifically, the constructions in question are all based on a single lexical representation of the adjectives involved. (ii) The Positive of a relative adjective is interpreted with respect to a contextually determined class of comparison C. Within C, a standard, average, or norm N.c A. is defined with respect to the property A specified by the adjective in question, so that, e.g., John is tall is interpreted roughly as ‘John is taller than /V M ’. In the present paper, 1 will not be concerned with the question how Cand Ntr.. are determined, but simply assume that N is available. (I will usually drop the index [C, A] of N.) (iii) Relative adjectives assign to an individual x a degree dA where d might be conceived as a class of individuals that are equivalent with respect to A. (This notion will be somewhat modified below.) Differing from all other approaches, I make the following assumptions: (iv) The lexical representation of a relational adjective is semantically a kind of three-place predicate that relates an individual x, a standard of comparison v, and a difference c. With respect to their semantic type, both v and c are degrees, and the degree assigned to x is composed of the values of v and c? One of the possible values of v is N. (v) Comparative and Equative constructions are related to each other in roughly the following way: the complement clause of the Comparative specifies the value of v, while that of the Equative specifies the value of c.4 (vi) Relative adjectives belong to (at least) two classes, which I will call dimensional adjectives (tall, long, heavy etc.), and evaluative adjectives (clever, nice, good etc.). The degrees specified by D-adjectives are extents, the degrees specified by E-adjectives are grades.5 (vii) There is a small number of conditions on semantic representations that determine, among others, the value the standard of comparison v can assume in specified configurations. To conclude this preliminary outline, I should emphasize that more important than the list of individual points relating the present theory to or distinguishing it from other proposals is the general structure of the theory, which is different from its predecessors. This will become clear as we proceed.