Skip to main content
Log in

Generics and Mental Representations

  • Published:
Linguistics and Philosophy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

It is widely agreed that generics tolerate exceptions. It turns out, however, thatexceptions are tolerated only so long as they do not violate homogeneity:when the exceptions are not concentrated in a salient “chunk” of the domain ofthe generic. The criterion for salience of a chunk is cognitive: it is dependent onthe way in which the domain is mentally represented. Findings of psychologicalexperiments about the ways in which different domains are represented, and thefactors affecting such representations, account for judgments of generic sentences,facts which cannot be explained by linguistics alone.The reason for the homogeneity requirement itself is, in turn, also dependenton cognitive considerations. Generics express default rules, and psychologicalfindings have shown that, the more homogeneous the domain, the easier it isfor subjects to infer rules about it. Thus, cognitive results form a crucial part of a comprehensive account of the meaningof a linguistic expression.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adelson, B.: 1985, ‘Comparing Natural and Abstract Categories: A Case Study from Computer Science’, Cognitive Science 9, 417–430.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barclay, J. R., J. D. Bransford, J. J. Franks, N. S. McCarrell, and K. Nitsch: 1974, ‘Comprehension and Semantic Flexibility’, Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 13, 471–481.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bush, L. E.: 1973, ‘Individual Differences Multidimensional Scaling of Adjectives Denoting Feelings’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 25(1), 50–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carlson, G.: 1977, ‘Reference to Kinds in English’, Ph.D. thesis, University of Massachusetts at Amherst. Also published 1980, Garland, New York.

  • Chierchia, G. and S. McConnell-Ginet: 1990, Meaning and Grammar, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

    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.: 1997, ‘Generics and Default Reasoning’, Computational Intelligence 13(4), 506–533.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, R. A.: 1959, Statistical Methods and Scientific Inference, Oliver and Boyd, Edinburgh, second edition.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hemeren, P. E.: 1996, ‘Frequency, Ordinal Position and Semantic Distance as Measures of Cross-Cultural Stability and Hierarchies for Action Verbs’, Acta Psychologica 91, 39–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henley, N. M.: 1969, ‘A Psychological Study of the Semantics of Animal Terms’, Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 8, 176–184.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horn, L. R.: 1972, ‘On the Semantic Properties of Logical Operators in English’, Ph.D. thesis, University of California, Los Angeles.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krifka, M., F. J. Pelletier, G. Carlson, A. ter Meulen, G. Link, and G. Chierchia: 1995, ‘Genericity: an Introduction’, in G. Carlson and F. J. Pelletier (eds.), The Generic Book, University of Chicago Press, pp. 1–124.

  • Lowe, E.: 1991, ‘Noun Phrases, Quantifiers and Generic Names’, The Philosophical Quarterly 41(164), 287–300.

    Google Scholar 

  • Montague, R.: 1973, ‘The Proper Treatment of Quantification in Ordinary English’, in J. Hintikka, J. Moravcsik, and P. Suppes (eds.), Approaches to Natural Language, Reidel, Dordrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, G. L. and E. J. Wisniewski: 1989, ‘Categorizing Objects in Isolation and in Scenes: What a Superordinate Is Good For’, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 15(4), 572–586.

    Google Scholar 

  • Osherson, D. N., E. E. Smith, O. Wilkie, A. López, and E. Shafir: 1990, ‘Category-Based Induction’, Psychological Review 97(2), 185–200.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Rifkin, A.: 1985, ‘Evidence for a Basic Level in Event Taxonomies’, Memory and Cognition 13(6), 538–556.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosch, E., C. B. Mervis, W. D. Gray, D. M. Johnson, and P. Boyes-Braem: 1976, ‘Basic Objects in Natural Categories’, Cognitive Psychology 8, 382–439.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenberg, S. and M. J. Kim: 1975, ‘The Method of Sorting as a Data-Gathering Procedure in Multivariate Research’, Multivariate Behavioral Research 10, 489–502.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sadler, D. D. and E. J. Shoben: 1993, ‘Context Effects on Semantic Domains as Seen in Analogy Solution’, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 19(1), 128–147.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sattath, S. and A. Tversky: 1977, ‘Additive Similarity Trees’, Psychometrika 42(3), 319–345.

    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 

  • Shoben, E. J.: 1976, ‘The Verification of Semantic Relations in a Same-Different Paradigm: An Asymmetry in Semantic Memory’, Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 15, 365–379.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shoben, E. J. and B. H. Ross: 1987, ‘Structure and Process in Cognitive Psychology Using Multidimensional Scaling and Related Techniques’, in R. R. Ronning, J. A. Glover, J. C. Conoley, and J. C. Witt (eds.), The Influence of Cognitive Psychology on Testing, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, pp. 229–266.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, E. E.: 1995, ‘Concepts and Categorization’, in E. E. Smith and D. N. Osherson (eds.), Thinking, Vol. 3 of An Invitation to Cognitive Science, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 2nd edition, pp. 3–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, E. E. and D. L. Medin: 1981, Categories and Concepts, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A. and J. W. Hutchinson: 1986, ‘Nearest Neighbor Analysis of Psychological Spaces’, Psychological Review 93(1), 3–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, B. and K. Hemenway: 1984, ‘Objects, Parts, and Categories’, Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 113(2), 169–197.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wish, M.: 1970, ‘Comparisons among Multidimensional Structures of Nations Based on Different Measures of Subjective Similarity’, General Systems 15, 55–65.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wish, M., M. Deutsch, and L. Biener: 1972, ‘Differences in Perceived Similarity of Nations’, in A. K. Romney, R. N. Shepard, and S. B. Nerlove (eds.), Multidimensional Scaling, Vol. 2: Applications, Seminar Press, New York, pp. 289–313.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Cohen, A. Generics and Mental Representations. Linguistics and Philosophy 27, 529–556 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1023/B:LING.0000033851.25870.3e

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/B:LING.0000033851.25870.3e

Navigation