Bounds consequence provides an interpretation of a multiple-conclusion consequence relation in which the derivability of a sequent is understood as the claim that it is conversationally out-of-bounds to take a position in which each member of Γ is asserted while each member of Δ is denied. Two of the foremost champions of bounds consequence—Greg Restall and David Ripley—have independently indicated that the shape of the bounds in question is determined by conversational practice. In this paper, I suggest that the standard treatments of bounds consequence have focused heavily on the matter of veridicality at the expense of ignoring other features by which conversational bounds are set, prime among them being the matter of content or subject-matter. Furthermore, I argue that the semantic behavior of propositions containing “monstrous” content—content whose introduction is inappropriate to a context independently of veridical considerations—leads to a weak Kleene account of bounds consequence.

边界结果提供了对多重结论结果关系的解释，其中序列的可推导性被理解为这样的主张：在会话中，假设Γ的每个成员都被断言而Δ的每个成员都被断言是会话越界的。被拒绝。两个最重要的边界后果拥护者——Greg Restall 和 David Ripley——已经独立地指出，所讨论的边界的形状是由会话练习决定的。在本文中，我建议对界限后果的标准处理主要集中在真实性问题上，而忽略了设置会话界限的其他特征，其中主要是内容或主题问题。此外，我认为包含“怪异”内容的命题的语义行为——内容的引入不适合独立于真实考虑的上下文——导致 Kleene 对边界后果的弱解释。