Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Existential Generics

  • Published:
Linguistics and Philosophy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

While opinions on the semantic analysis of generics vary widely, most scholars agree that generics have a quasi-universal flavor. However, there are cases where generics receive what appears to be an existentialinterpretation. For example, B's response is true, even though only theplatypus and the echidna lay eggs:

(1) A: Birds lay eggs. B: Mammals lay eggs too.

In this paper I propose a uniform account of the semantics of generics,which accounts for their quasi-existential readings as well as for their more familiar quasi-universal ones. Generics are focus-sensitiveoperators: their domain is restricted by a set of alternatives, which may be provided by focus. I claim that, unlike otherfocus-sensitive operators, generics may, but do not have to, associate with focus. When alternatives are introduced, either by focus or by other means, generics get their usual quasi-universal readings. But when no alternatives are introduced, quasi-existential readings result.I argue that generics, unlike adverbs of quantification, do not introduce tripartite structures directly, but are initially interpreted as cases ofdirect kind predication. Only when this interpretation fails to make sense, the phonologically null generic quantifier is derived, and tripartite structures result. This two-level interpretation has the effect that while adverbs of quantification require focus to determine which elements go to the restrictor and which to the nuclear scope, and hence must associate with focus, generics do not, and hence may fail to associate with focus, resulting in quasi-existential readings.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

REFERENCES

  • Barker, S.: 1993, 'Conditional Excluded Middle, Conditional Assertion, and only if', Analysis 53, 254–261.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bartels, C.: 1997, 'Accoustic Correlates of “Second Occurrence” Focus: Toward an Experimental Investigation', In Kamp and Partee, pp. 11–30.

  • Bolinger, D.: 1980, Syntactic Diffusion and the Indefinite Article, Indiana University Linguistics Club, Bloomington.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carlson, G.: 1977, 'Reference to Kinds in English', Ph.D. thesis, University of Massachusetts at Amherst. Also published 1980, New York: Garland, to which edition page numbers refer.

  • Carlson, G. and F. J. Pelletier (eds.): 1995, The Generic Book, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cavedon, L. and S. Glasbey: 1994, 'Outline of an Information-Flow Model of Generics', Acta Linguistica Hungarica 42.

  • Chierchia, G.: 1998, 'Reference to Kinds across Languages', Natural Language Semantics 6, 339–405.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, A.: 1996, 'Think Generic: The Meaning and Use of Generic Sentences', Ph.D. thesis, Carnegie Mellon University. Published 1999, CSLI, Stanford.

  • Cohen, A.: 1999, 'Generics, Frequency Adverbs, and Probability', Linguistics and Philosophy 22, 221–253.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, A.: 2001a, 'On the Generic Use of Indefinite Singulars', Journal of Semantics 18(3), 183–209.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, A.: 2001b, 'Relative Readings of Many, Often, and Generics', Natural Language Semantics 9, 41–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, A. and N. Erteschik-Shir: 2002, 'Topic, Focus and the Interpretation of Bare Plurals', Natural Language Semantics 10(2), 125–165.

    Google Scholar 

  • Creswell, C.: 1999, 'The Discourse Function of Verum Focus in Wh-Questions', in M. Hirotani, A. Coetzee, N. Hall, and J.-Y. Kim (eds.): Proceedings of NELS 30. pp. 165–179.

  • Dahl, O.: 1975, 'On Generics', in E. L. Keenan (ed.), Formal Semantics of Natural Language, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 99–111.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dayal, V. S.: 1992, 'The Singular-Plural Distinction in Hindi Generics', in C. Barker and D. Dowty (eds.), Proceedings of the Second Conference on Semantics and Linguistic Theory, Ohio State University, pp. 39–57.

  • Declerk, R.: 1986, 'The Manifold Interpretations of Generic Sentences', Lingua 68, 149–188.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diesing, M.: 1992, Indefinites, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heim, I.: 1982, 'The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite NPs', Ph.D. thesis, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.

  • Higgins, F. R.: 1973, 'The Pseudo-Cleft Construction in English', Ph.D. thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Also published 1979, New York: Garland, to which edition page numbers refer.

  • Höhle, T.: 1992, 'Über Verum-Fokus in Deutschen', Linguistische Berichte.

  • Horn, L.: 1996, 'Exclusive Company: Only and the Dynamics of Vertical Inference', Journal of Semantics 13, 1–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs, J.: 1988, 'Fokus — Hintergrund — Gliederung und Grammatik', in H. Altmann (ed.), Intonationsforschungen, Niemeyer, Tübingen, pp. 89–134.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kamp, H.: 1981, 'A Theory of Truth and Semantic Representation', in J. Gronendijk, T. Janssen, and M. Stokhof (eds.), Formal Methods in the Study of Language: Proceedings of the Third Amsterdam Colloquium, Mathematical Centre, Amsterdam, pp. 1–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kamp, H. and B. Partee (eds.), 1997, Context Dependence in the Analysis of Linguistic Meaning 2: Proceedings of the Workshops in Prague and Bad Teinach, University of Stuttgart Working Papers.

  • Kiss, K. É.: 1998a, 'Identificational Focus Versus Information Focus', Language 74(2), 245–273.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kiss, K. É.: 1998b, 'On Generic and Existential Bare Plurals and the Classification of Predicates', in S. Rothstein (ed.), Events and Grammar, Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp. 145–162.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kratzer, A.: 1995, 'Stage-Level and Individual-Level Predicates', in Carlson and Pelletier, pp. 125–175.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krifka, M.: 1987, 'An Outline of Genericity', Technical Report SNS-Bericht 87-25, Seminar für natürlich-sprachliche Systeme, Tübingen University, Germany.

  • Krifka, M.: 1988, 'The Relational Theory of Genericity', in M. Krifka (ed.), Genericity in Natural Language: Proceedings of the 1988 Tübingen Conference, pp. 285–311.

  • Krifka, M.: 1997, 'Focus and/or Context: A Second Look at Second Occurrence Expressions', in Kamp and Partee, pp. 253–275.

  • Krifka, M.: 1999, 'Additive Particles under Stress', in Proceedings of the 8th Conference on Semantics and Linguistic Theory, CLC Publications, Cornell, pp. 111–128.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krifka, M., F. J. Pelletier, G. Carlson, A. ter Meulen, G. Link, and G. Chierchia: 1995, 'Genericity: an Introduction', in Carlson and Pelletier, pp. 1–124.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawler, J.: 1972, 'Generic to a Fault', in Papers from the Eighth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society.

  • Link, G.: 1995, 'Generic Information and Dependent Generics', in Carlson and Pelletier, pp. 358–382.

    Google Scholar 

  • Partee, B. H.: 1991, 'Topic, Focus and Quantification', in S. Moore and A. Z. Wyner (eds.), Proceedings of the First Conference on Semantics and Linguistic Theory, Cornell University, pp. 159–187.

  • Pelletier, F. J. and N. Asher: 1997, 'Generics and Defaults', in J. van Benthem and A. ter Meulen (eds.), Handbook of Logic and Language, Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 1125–1177.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rooth, M. E.: 1985, 'Association with Focus', Ph.D. thesis, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.

  • Rooth, M. E.: 1995, 'Indefinites, Adverbs of Quantification and Focus Semantics', in Carlson and Pelletier, pp. 265–299.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schubert, L. K. and F. J. Pelletier: 1987, 'Problems in the Representation of the Logical Form of Generics, Plurals, and Mass Nouns', in E. LePore (ed.), New Directions in Semantics, Academic Press, London, pp. 385–451.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schubert, L. K. and F. J. Pelletier: 1989, 'Generically Speaking, or Using Discourse Representation Theory to Interpret Generics', in G. Chierchia, B. H. Partee, and R. Turner (eds.), Properties, Types and Meaning, Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp. 193–268.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strzalkowski, T.: 1988, 'A Meaning Representation for Generic Sentences', Technical Report 423, Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences, New York University.

  • ter Meulen, A.: 1995, 'Semantic Constraints on Type-Shifting Anaphora', in Carlson and Pelletier, pp. 339–357.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Geenhoven, V.: 1996, 'Semantic Incorporation and Indefinite Descriptions', Ph.D. thesis, University of Tübingen. Published by CSLI, 1998.

  • Vendler, Z.: 1971, 'Singular Terms', in D. D. Steinberg and L. A. Jakobovits (eds.), Semantics: An Interdisciplinary Reader in Philosophy, Linguistics and Psychology, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Fintel, K.: 1997, 'Bare Plurals, Bare Conditionals, and only', Journal of Semantics 14, 1–56.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Foreign Literatures & Linguistics, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer Sheva, 84105, Israel

    Ariel Cohen

Authors
  1. Ariel Cohen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Cohen, A. Existential Generics. Linguistics and Philosophy 27, 137–168 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1023/B:LING.0000016441.89129.3d

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/B:LING.0000016441.89129.3d

Keywords

Search

Navigation