Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T13:07:35.268Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Saying and doing: The role of semantics in the use of generic sentences

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 June 2016

Bernhard Nickel*
Affiliation:
Harvard University

Abstract

This article discusses semantic theories of generic sentences that seek to tie their meaning closely to their use, rather than giving more traditional truth-conditional semantic treatments. It focuses on McConnell-Ginet’s recent work and defends truth-conditional approaches combined with a traditional semantics-pragmatics distinction.

Résumé

Résumé

Cet article porte sur les phrases génériques et sur les analyses sémantiques qui tentent de lier l’interprétation de ces phrases à leur usage plutôt qu’en terme de conditions de vérité comme il est de mise dans les analyses traditionnelles. L’article vise en particulier le travail récent de McConnell-Ginet et défend les approches traditionnelles en termes de conditions de vérité tout en défendant la distinction ordinaire entre la sémantique et la pragmatique;

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Linguistic Association/Association canadienne de linguistique 2012 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Austin, John L. 1975. How to do things with words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Beck, Sigrid and Sauerland, Uli. 2000. Cumulation is needed: A reply to Winter (2000). Natural Language Semantics 8:349–371.Google Scholar
Bezuidenhout, Anne L. 2002. Truth-conditional pragmatics. Philosophical Perspectives 16: 105–34.Google Scholar
Cappelen, Herman and Lepore, Ernie. 2005. Insensitive semantics. Maiden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
Cohen, Ariel. 2004. Existential generics. Linguistics and Philosophy. 27:137–168.Google Scholar
Gillon, Brendan. 1987. The readings of plural noun phrases. Linguistics and Philosophy 10: 199–220.Google Scholar
Gillon, Brendan. 1992. Towards a common semantics for English count and mass nouns. Linguistics and Philosophy 15:597–640.Google Scholar
Grice, H. Paul. 1991. Logic and conversation. In Studies in the ways of words, 22–10. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Groenendijk, Jeroen and Stokhof, Martin. 1997. Questions. In Handbook of logic and language, ed. Bentham, Johan van and Meulen, Alice ter, 1055–1124. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Lewis, David K. 1983. Scorekeeping in a language game. In Philosophical papers, vol. 1, 233–249. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
McConnell-Ginet, Sally. 2012. Generic predicates and interest-relativity. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 57:xxx-yyy.Google Scholar
Nickel, Bernhard. 2010. Generic comparisons. Journal of Semantics 27:207–242.Google Scholar
Predelli, Stefano. 2005. Contexts: Meaning, truth, and the use of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sauerland, Uli. 1998. Plurals, derived predicates, and reciprocals. In The interpretive tract, MIT Working Papers in Linguistics (MITWPL), vol. 25, ed. Sauerland, Uli and Perçus, Orin, 177–204. Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Schiebinger, Londa. 2000. Taxonomy for human beings. In The gendered cyborg, ed. Kirkup, Gill, 11–37. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Schwarzschild, Roger. 1994. Plurals, presuppositions, and the sources of distributivity. Natural Language Semantics 2:201–248.Google Scholar
Schwarzschild, Roger. 1996. Pluralities. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Sternefeld, Wolfgang. 1998. Reciprocity and cumulative predication. Natural Language Semantics 6:303–337.Google Scholar
Szabo, Zoltan Gendler. 2001. Adjectives in context. In Perspectives on semantics, pragmatics, and discourse, ed. Kenesei, István and Harnisch, Robert M., 119–146. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Travis, Charles. 1985. On what is strictly speaking true. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 15:187–229.Google Scholar