Abstract
In addition to the familiar cardinal and proportional readings of many and few, there is yet another interpretation, the relative proportional reading. This reading, unlike the ordinary absolute proportional reading, is not conservative. Under the relative reading, 'Many ψs are φs' is true just in case the proportion of φs among ψs is greater than the proportion of φs among members of contextually given alternatives to ψ. I provide a definition of proportional readings that reduces the differences between absolute and relative interpretations to the value of a single parameter.
I argue that relative readings are not restricted to many and few, but are also exhibited by the adverbs often and seldom, and by generics. Interpretations of determiners that have been treated as "focus-affected readings," interpretations of adverbs of quantification that have been treated as "pure frequency readings," and interpretations of generics which have been claimed to be cases of "reverse interpretation" or "direct kind predication" are, in fact, instances of relative readings.
A: Army reserve service is especially hard on people who own a small business.
Q: Do many small-business owners serve in your regiment?
A: I don't know what it's like in other regiments –
Q: I am not asking you about other regiments.
A: I know, but relatively speaking . . .
(Interview on Israel Army Radio, June 8th, 2001)
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
REFERENCES
Chierchia, G.: 1992, ‘Anaphora and Dynamic Binding’, Linguistics and Philosophy 15, 111–183.
Cohen, A.: 1996, Think Generic: The Meaning and Use of Generic Sentences, PhD dissertation, Carnegie–Mellon University, Pittsburgh. Published by CSLI, Stanford, 1999.
Cohen, A.: 1999a, ‘Generics, Frequency Adverbs, and Probability’, Linguistics and Philosophy 22, 221–253.
Cohen, A.: 1999b, ‘How Are Alternatives Computed?’, Journal of Semantics 16, 43–65.
Cohen A.: to appear, ‘On the Generic Use of Indefinite Singulars’, to appear in Journal of Semantics.
Eckardt, R.: 1994, ‘Adverbs in Focus’, technical report, Project Dyana, Universität Tübingen.
Erteschik–Shir, N.: 1997, The Dynamics of Focus Structure. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Fernando, T. and H. Kamp: 1996, ‘Expecting Many’, in T. Galloway and J. Spence (eds.), Proceedings of the Sixth Conference on Semantics and Linguistic Theory, pp. 53–68. CLC Publications, Ithaca, NY.
Geiluß, J.: 1993, ‘Nominal Quantifiers and Association with Focus’, in P. Ackema and M. Schoorlemmer (eds.), Proceedings of the Workshop on the Semantic and Syntactic Analysis of Focus, pp. 33–41. Utrecht Institute of Linguistics, OTS, Utrecht.
Grice, H. P.: 1975, ‘Logic and Conversation’, in P. Cole and J. L. Morgan (eds.), Speech Acts [Syntax and Semantics 3], pp. 41–58. Academic Press, New York.
Herburger, E.: 1997, ‘Focus and Weak Noun Phrases’, Natural Language Semantics 5, 53–78.
de Hoop, H. and J. Solà: 1996, ‘Determiners, Context Sets, and Focus’, in Proceedings of the Fourteenth West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, pp. 155–167. CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA.
Keenan, E. L. and L. M. Faltz: 1985, Boolean Semantics for Natural Language. Reidel, Dordrecht.
Kratzer, A.: 1981, ‘The Notional Category of Modality’, in H. J. Eikmeyer and H. Rieser (eds.), Words, Worlds, and Contexts: New Approaches in Word Semantics, pp. 38–74. de Gruyter, Berlin.
Krifka, M., F. J. Pelletier, G. N. Carlson, A. ter Meulen, G. Chierchia, and G. Link: 1995, ‘Genericity: An Introduction’, in G. Carlson and F. J. Pelletier (eds.), The Generic Book, pp. 1–124. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Lappin, S.: 1988, ‘The Semantics of Many as a Weak Quantifier’, Linguistics 26, 1021–1037.
Lappin, S.: 1993, ‘‖Many‖ as a Two–Place Determiner Function’, in M. Cobb and Y. Yian (eds.), SOAS Working Papers in Linguistics and Phonetics 3, SOAS, University of London, pp. 337–358.
Lappin, S.: 2000, ‘An Intensional Parametric Semantics for Vague Quantifiers’, Linguistics and Philosophy 23, 599–620.
Lawler, J.: 1973, Studies in English Generics, PhD dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Milsark, G.: 1977, ‘Toward an Explanation of Certain Peculiarities of the Existential Construction in English’, Linguistic Analysis 3, 1–29.
Partee, B. H.: 1988, ‘Many Quantifiers’, in J. Powers and K. de Jong (eds.), Proceedings of the Fifth Eastern States Conference on Linguistics, pp. 383–402. The Ohio State University, Columbus.
Reinhart, T.: 1981, ‘Pragmatics and Linguistics: An Analysis of Sentence Topics’, Philosophica 27, 53–94.
Rooth, M. E.: 1985, Association with Focus, PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.
Strawson P. F.: 1964, ‘Identifying Reference and Truth–Values’, Theoria 30, 96–118. Reprinted in L. Steinberg and L. Jakobovits (eds.), Semantics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1971.
de Swart, H.: 1991, Adverbs of Quantification: A Generalized Quantifier Approach, PhD dissertation, Groningen University. Also published by Garland, New York, 1993.
Westerståhl, D.: 1985a, ‘Determiners and Context Sets’, in J. van Benthem and A. ter Meulen (eds.), Generalized Quantifiers in Natural Language, pp. 45–71. Foris, Dordrecht.
Westerståhl, D.: 1985b, ‘Logical Constants in Quantifier Languages’, Linguistics and Philosophy 8, 387–413.
Wilkinson, K.: 1991, Studies in the Semantics of Generic Noun Phrases, PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Cohen, A. Relative Readings of Many, Often, and Generics. Natural Language Semantics 9, 41–67 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1017913406219
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1017913406219