Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Generically free choice

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Linguistics and Philosophy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper discusses free-choice like effects in generics. Just as Jane may drink coffee or tea can be used to convey Jane may drink coffee and Jane may drink tea (she is “free to choose”), some generics with disjunctive predicates can be used to convey conjunctions of simpler generics: elephants live in Africa or Asia can be used to convey elephants live in Africa and elephants live in Asia. Investigating these logically slightly more complex generics and especially the free-choice like effects throws light on both the semantics of generics and the interaction between world knowledge and the interpretive options generics offer. This paper presents a package of semantic and pragmatic hypotheses to account for the data, including why the effect is absent in the superficially logically similar elephants live in Africa or give birth to live young.

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

  • Alonso-Ovalle, L., (2005). Distributing the disjuncts over the modal space. In L. Bateman & C. Ussery (Eds.), Proceedings of the North East Linguistics Society (Vol. 35). Amherst, MA: GLSA. https://doi.org/www.alonso-ovalle.net/papers/alonso-ovalleNELS2005.pdf.

  • Asher N., Morreau M. (1995) What some generic sentences mean. In: Carlson G.N., Pelletier F.J. (eds) The generic book. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 300–339

    Google Scholar 

  • Barwise J. (1986) Conditionals and conditional information. In: Traugott E., ter Meulen A., Snitzer-Reilly J., Ferguson C. (eds) On conditionals. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 21–54

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Beck S., Sauerland U. (2000) Cumulation is needed: A reply to Winter (2000). Natural Language Semantics 8(4): 349–371

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brisson C. (2003) Plurals, all, and the nonuniformity of collective predication. Linguistics and Philosophy 26(2): 129–184

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carlson, G. N. (1977). Reference to kinds in English. Ph.D. thesis, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

  • Carlson G.N. (1995) Truth conditions of generic sentences: Two contrasting views. In: Carlson G.N., Pelletier F.J. (eds) The generic book. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 224–237

    Google Scholar 

  • Carlson G.N. (2002) A unified analysis of the English bare plural. In: Portner P., Partee B.H. (eds) Formal semantics: The essential readings. Blackwell Publishing, Malden, MA, pp 35–74

    Google Scholar 

  • Chierchia G. (2002) Scalar implicature, polarity phenomena, and the syntax/pragmatics interface. In: Belletti A. (Ed.) Structures and beyond. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 39–103

    Google Scholar 

  • Chierchia, G., Fox, D., & Spector, B. (2010). The grammatical view of scalar implicatures and the relationship between semantics and pragmatics. In Portner et al. (Ed.), Handbook of semantics. https://doi.org/semanticsarchive.net/Archive/WMzY2ZmY/CFSEmbeddedSIs.pdf (to appear)

  • Cohen A. (1999a) Generics, frequency adverbs, and probability. Linguistics and Philosophy 22: 221–253

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen A. (1999b) Think generic!. CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen A. (2004) Generics and mental representation. Linguistics and Philosophy 27(5): 529–556

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eckardt R. (1999) Normal objects, normal worlds, and the meaning of generics. Journal of Semantics 16(3): 237–278

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fodor, J. D. (1970). The linguistic description of opaque contexts. Ph.D. thesis, MIT.

  • Fox D. (2007) Free choice and the theory of scalar implicatures. In: Sauerland U., Stateva P. (eds) Presupposition and implicature in compositional semantics. Palgrave Macmillan, Houndsmills, pp 71–120

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Gerstner-Link, C. (1988). Über Generizität. Generische Nominalphrasen in singulären und generischen Aussagen. Ph.D. thesis, University of Munich.

  • Gillon B. (1987). The readings of plural noun phrases. Linguistics and Philosophy 10(2): 199–220

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gillon B. (1990) Plural noun phrases and their readings: A reply to Lasersohn. Linguistics and Philosophy 13(4): 477–485

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gillon B. (1992) Towards a common semantics for English count and mass nouns. Linguistics and Philosophy 15(6): 597–640

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenberg Y. (2007) Exceptions to generics: Where vagueness, context dependence and modality interact. Journal of Semantics 24(2): 131–167

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenhall O. (2008) Against Chierchia’s computational account of scalar implicatures. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 108(1 (pt. 3)): 373–384

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grice, H. (1991). Logic and conversation. In Studies in the ways of words (pp. 22–40). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

  • Harnish R.M. (1991) Logical form and implicature. In: Davis S. (Ed.) Pragmatics: A reader. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 316–364

    Google Scholar 

  • Heim, I. (1982). The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases. Ph.D. thesis, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

  • Horn, L. R. (1972). On the semantic properties of logical operators in English. Ph.D. thesis, University of California, Los Angeles.

  • Kamp H. (1973) Free choice permission. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 74: 57–74

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kamp H. (1978) Semantics vs. pragmatics. In: Guenthner F., Schmidt S.J. (eds) Formal semantics and pragmatics for natural language. Reidel, Dordrecht, pp 255–287

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Klinedinst, N. W. (2007). Plurality and possibility. Ph.D. thesis, University of California, Los Angeles.

  • Krifka M., Pelletier F.J., Carlson G.N., ter Meulen A., Chierchia G., Link G. (1995) Genericity: An introduction. In: Carlson G.N., Pelletier F.J. (eds) The generic book. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 1–124

    Google Scholar 

  • Lakoff G. (1972) Linguistics and natural logic. In: Davidson D., Harman G. (eds) Semantics of natural language. D. Reidel, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Landmann F. (2000) Events and plurality. Kluwer, Dordrecht

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lasersohn P. (1995) Plurality, conjunction, and events. Kluwer, Dordrecht

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Liebesman, D. (forthcoming). Simple generics. Noŭs. https://doi.org/sites.google.com/site/davidliebesman/simplegenerics/SGsfinal3.doc?attredirects=0.

  • Little C.C. (1958) Coat color genes in rodents and carnivores. The Quarterly Review of Biology 33(2): 103–137

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCarthy J. (1980) Circumscription: Aform of non-monotonic reasoning. Artificial Intelligence 13(1–2): 27–39

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCarthy J. (1986) Applications of circumscription to formalizing common sense knowledge. Artificial Intelligence 28(1): 89–116

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKay T.J. (2006) Plural predication. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Nickel B. (2008) Generics and the ways of normality. Linguistics and Philosophy 31(6): 629–648

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nickel B. (2010a) Ceteris paribus laws: Genericity, and natural kinds. Philosophers’ Imprint 10(6): 1–25

    Google Scholar 

  • Nickel B. (2010b) Generic comparisons. Journal of Semantics 27(2): 207–242

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parwise J., Perry J. (1983) Situations and attitudes. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Pietroski P.M. (2005) Events and semantic architecture. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Sag, I. A. (1976). Deletion and logical form. Ph.D. thesis, MIT.

  • Sauerland U. (2004) Scalar implicatures in complex sentences. Linguistics and Philosophy 27: 367–391

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schein B. (1993) Plurals and events. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Schubert, L. K., & Pelletier, F. J. (1989). Generically speaking, or, using discourse representation theory to interpret generics. In G. Chierchia, B. H. Partee, & R. Turner (Eds.), Properties, types, and meaning (Vol. II, pp. 193–268). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

  • Schwarzschild R. (1996) Pluralities. Kluwer, Dordrecht

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Simons M. (2005) Dividing things up: The semantics of or and the modal/or interaction. Natural Language Semantics 13(3): 271–316

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ter Meulen A. (1986) Generic information, conditional contexts, and constraints. In: Traugott E., ter Meulen A., Snitzer-Reilly J., Ferguson C. (eds) On conditionals. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 123–145

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • von Fintel K. (1997) Bare plurals, bare conditionals, and only. Journal of Semantics 14(1): 1–56

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilkinson, K. (1991). Studies in the semantics of generic noun phrases. Ph.D. thesis, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

  • Winter Y. (2000) Distributivity and dependency. Natural Language Semantics 8(4): 27–69

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman T.E. (2000) Free choice disjunction and epistemic possibility. Natural Language Semantics 8(4): 255–290

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Philosophy, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA

    Bernhard Nickel

Authors
  1. Bernhard Nickel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bernhard Nickel.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Nickel, B. Generically free choice. Linguist and Philos 33, 479–512 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-011-9087-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-011-9087-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation