Lanaguage Research
Language Education Institute, Seoul National University
Article

Generics and Conceptualizations

YoungEun Yoon1,
*Corresponding Author : Professor, Department of English Language and Literature, Ewha Womans University, Ewhayeodae-gil 52, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul 03760, Korea, E-mail: yeyoon@ewha.ac.kr

ⓒ Copyright 2019 Language Education Institute, Seoul National University. This is an Open-Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Received: Oct 31, 2019 ; Revised: Dec 05, 2019 ; Accepted: Dec 18, 2019

Published Online: Dec 31, 2019

ABSTRACT

Generics have been studied vigorously over the past few decades, mostly by formal linguists and philosophers. As is well known, there are two representative formal approaches toward generics: majority-based and normalcy-based approaches. Both approaches have been met with criticism but continue to undergo revisions. In contrast, Leslie (2007a,2007b; 2008; 2012; 2017) proposes a cognition-based approach arguing against the majority- and normalcy-based approaches. She proposes that generics express our most primitive and fundamental generalizations and are non-quantificational. Thus, the main purpose of this paper is to propose genericity as a semantic, pragmatic, and even cognitive phenomenon, arguing that generics should be accounted for through cognitive conceptualizations. It will also be proposed that the generic operator is a quasi-universal quantifier, in contrast to both the formal and cognitive approaches. This position will be supported by experimental results.

Keywords: generics, exceptions; majority/normalcy/cognition-based views; cognitive conceptualizations; quasi-universal quantifier

References

1.

Asher, N., & Morreau, M. (1995). What some generic sentences mean. In G. N. Carlson and F. J. Pelletier (Eds.), The generic book, 300-339. Chicago: Chicago University Press .

2.

Claveau, F., & Girard, J.. (2018). Generic generalizations in science: A bridge to everyday language. Erkenntnis, 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10670-018-9983-x .

3.

Cohen, A. (1996). Think generic: The meaning and use of generic sentences (Ph.D. dissertation). Department of Linguistics, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburg, PA .

4.

Cohen, A. (1999). Generics, frequency adverbs, and probability. Linguistics and Philosophy, 22(3), 221-253 .

5.

Cohen, A. (2004). Generics and mental representation. Linguistics and Philosophy, 27(5), 529-555 .

6.

Cingano, F. (2014). Trends in income inequality and its impact on economic growth. OECD Social, Employment, and Migration Working Papers. Paris: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/content/workingpaper/5jxrjncwxv6j-en .

7.

Hoeltje, M. (2017). Generics and ways of being normal. Linguistics and Philosophy, 40(2), 101-118 .

8.

Kahneman, D. (2002). Maps of bounded rationality: A perspective on intuitive judgments and choice. Nobel Prize Lecture .

9.

Kövecses, Z. (2010). Metaphor. New York, New York: Oxford University Press .

10.

Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago, Ill.: University of Chicago Press .

11.

Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press .

12.

Lerner, A., & Leslie, S-J. (2016). Generics and experimental philosophy. In J. Sytsma & W. Buckwalter (Eds.), A companion to experimental philosophy, 404-416. Hoboken: Wiley. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10/1002/9781118661666.ch28/summary .

13.

Leslie, S-J. (2007a). Generics, cognition, and comprehension (Ph.D. dissertation). Department of Philosophy, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ .

14.

Leslie, S-J. (2007b). Generics and the structure of the mind. Philosophical Perspectives, 21(1), 375-403 .

15.

Leslie, S-J. (2008). Generics: cognition and acquisition. Philosophical Review, 117(1), 1-47 .

16.

Leslie, S-J. (2012). Generics articulate default generalizations. Recherches Linguistiques de Vincennes, 1(41), 25-44. https://doi.org/10.4000/rlv.2048 .

17.

Leslie, S-J. (2017). The original sin of cognition: Fear, prejudice, and generalization. The Journal of Philosophy, 114(8), 393-421 .

18.

Nickel, B. (2006). Semantics for characterizing sentences. In J. R. Gajewski, V. Hacquard, B. Nickel, & S. Yalcin (Eds.), Recent work on modality, 123-147. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press .

19.

Nickel, B. (2009). Generics and the ways of normality. Linguistics and Philosophy, 31(6), 629-648 .

20.

Nickel, B. (2010a). Generic comparisons. Journal of Semantics, 27(2), 207-242 .

21.

Nickel, B. (2010b). Generically free choice. Linguistics and Philosophy, 33(6), 479-512 .

22.

Nickel, B. (2013). Dutchmen are good sailors: Generics and gradability. In A. Mari, C. Beyssade, & F. Del Prete (Eds.), Genericity, 390-405. Oxford: Oxford University Press .

23.

Nickel, B. (2016). Between logic and the world: An integrated theory of generics. Oxford: Oxford University Press .

24.

Nickel, B. (2018). Ways of normality: Reply to Hoeltje. Linguistics and Philosophy, 41(3), 289-293 .

25.

Ostry, J. D., Berg, A., & Tsangarides, C. G. (2014). Redistribution, inequality, and growth. IMF Staff Discussion Note. International Monetary Fund .

26.

Pelletier, F. and Nicholas, A. (1997). Generics and defaults. In J. van Benthem, A. ter Meulen (Eds.), Handbook of logic and language, 1125-1179. Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press .