Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T13:18:22.487Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Generic predicates and interest-relativity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 June 2016

Sally Mcconnell-Ginet
Sally Mcconnell-Ginet*
Affiliation:
Cornell University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

“Simple generics” with bare plural subjects (e.g., dogs bark) predicate of a kind a property that the kind “inherits” from its individual members. But what does that inheritance amount to if it is not, like most dogs bark, based on how many individuals have the property. My conclusion: there is no determinate account of which (fundamentally individual-level) properties can be truly predicated of a kind: generics are not quantificational, and language users’ interests guide judgments on their truth-conditions. At the same time, even “canonical” predications of ordinary predicates of ordinary individuals are not so straightforward as they might appear. Generic claims about social groups show the indeterminacy of truth conditions for simple generics and the relation to stereotypes and sometimes conflicting interests.

Résumé

Résumé

Les génériques simples, tels que les noms nus sujets au pluriel (e.g., dogs bark), mettent en relation de prédication une espèce et une propriété que l’espèce «hérite» de ses membres individuels. Mais à quoi équivaut cet «héritage» s’il n’est pas (comme dans most dogs bark) fondé sur le nombre d’individus qui possèdent cette propriété? Ma conclusion : il n’y a pas d’analyse définitive des diverses propriétés (essentiellement de niveau individuel (I-level)) qui peuvent entrer en relation de prédication avec une espèce : les phrases génériques ne sont pas quantificationnelies et les intérêts des locuteurs guident les jugements des conditions de vérité. En outre, même la prédication «canonique» des prédicats ordinaires et des individus ordinaires n’est pas si simple. Les affirmations génériques à propos des groupes sociaux montrent la nature indéterminée des conditions de vérité pour les génériques simples, ainsi que le rapport avec les stéréotypes et parfois avec des intérêts conflictuels.

Keywords

Generickindquantificationstereotypeinterestgénériqueespécequantificationstéréotypeintérêt
Type
Articles
Information
Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique , Volume 57 , Issue 2: Properties of predication/Proprietes de la predication , July 2012 , pp. 261 - 287
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

Asher, Nicholas and Morreau, Michael. 1995. What some some generic sentences mean. In The generic book, ed. Carlson, Gregory and Pelletier, Jeffrey, 300–338. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Carlson, Gregory N. 1977. Reference to kinds in English. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst. [Published in Garland Outstanding Dissertations in Linguistics Series, 1980.]Google Scholar
Carlson, Gregory N. 1989. The semantic composition of English generic sentences. In Properties, types, and meaning 2: Semantic issues, ed. Chierchia, Gennaro, Partee, Barbara, and Turner, Ray, 167–191. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Carlson, Gregory N. 1995. Truth conditions of generic sentences: Two contrasting views. In The generic book, ed. Carlson, Gregory and Pelletier, Jeffrey, 224–237. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Carlson, Gregory N. 2008. Patterns in the interpretation of generic sentences. In Tense and modality, ed. Lecarme, Jacqueline and Jacqueline, Guéron, 17–38. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Carlson, Gregory N. and Jeffrey Pelletier, Francis, eds. 1995. The generic book. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Cohen, Ariel. 1999. Think generic! The meaning and use of generic sentences. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information (CSLI) Publications.Google Scholar
Cohen, Ariel. 2001a. On the generic use of indefinite singulars. Journal of Semantics 18.3:1–22.Google Scholar
Cohen, Ariel. 2001b. Relative readings of many, often, and generics. Natural Language Semantics 9:41–67.Google Scholar
Diesing, Molly. 1992. Indefinites. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Fara, Michael. 2005. Dispositions and habituals. Noûs 39:43–82.Google Scholar
Heim, Irene. 1982. The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.Google Scholar
Krifka, Manfred, Pelletier, Francis Jeffrey, Calson, Gregory N., Meulen, Alice ter, Chierchia, Gennaro, and Link, Godehard. 1995. Genericity: An introduction. In The generic book, ed. Carlson, Gregory and Pelletier, Jeffrey, 1–124. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lawler, John. 1973. Studies in English generics. Doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan.Google Scholar
Leslie, Sarah-Jane. 2007. Generics and the structure of mind. Philosophical Perspectives 21:375–403.Google Scholar
Leslie, Sarah-Jane. 2008. Generics: Cognition and acquisition. Philosophical Review 117:1–47.Google Scholar
Leslie, Sarah-Jane. To appear. The original sin of cognition: Race, prejudice and generalization. Journal of Philosophy.Google Scholar
Lewis, David. 1975. Adverbs of quantification. In Formal sematics of natural languages, ed. Keenan, Edward L., 3–15. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Liebesman, David. 2009. Simple generics. Paper presented at Workshop on Generics, University of Oslo, February 2009.Google Scholar
Milsark, Gary L. 1974. Existential sentences in English. Doctoral dissertation. MIT. [Published in Garland Outstanding Dissertations in Linguistics Series, 1979.]Google Scholar
Nickel, Bernhard. 2009. Generics and the ways of normality. Linguistics and Philosophy 31:629–648.Google Scholar
Nickel, Bernhard. 2010. Generic comparisons. Journal of Semantics 27:207–242.Google Scholar
Nickel, Bernhard. 2012. Generic comparisons. Journal of Semantics 27:207–242.Google Scholar
Predelli, Stefano. 2005. Painted leaves, context, and semantic analysis. Linguistics and Philosophy 28:351–374.Google Scholar
Rooth, Mats. 1985. Association with focus. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.Google Scholar
Valian, Virginia. 1998. Why so slow? Women and professional achievement. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar