Journal of Philosophical Logic

, Volume 11, Issue 2, pp 145–181

Generic terms and generic sentences

  • Greg N. Carlson
Article

Conclusion

Whether or not the particular view of generic sentences articulated above is correct, it is quite clear that the study of generic terms and the truth-conditions of generic sentences touches on the representation of other parts of the grammar, as well as on how the world around us is reflected in language. I would hope that the problems mentioned above will highlight the relevance of semantic analysis to other apparently distinct questions, and focus attention on the relevance of linguistic problems to other already established areas of inquiry.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Bibliography

  1. [1]
    Bacon, J. (1973) ‘Do generic descriptions denote’? Mind 82, 331–347.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    Bacon, J. (1974) ‘The untenability of genera’, Logique et Analyse 65, 197–208.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    Bartsch, R. (1972) ‘The syntax and semantics of number and numbers’, in J. Kimbal (ed.), Syntax and Semantics, Vol 2, Seminar Press, New York, pp. 51–94.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    Barwise, J. (1978) ‘Monotone quantifiers and admissible sets’, in J. Fenstad, R. Grandy, and G. Sacks (eds.), Generalized Recursion Theory, North-Holland, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    Bennett, M. (1974) ‘Some extensions of a Montague fragment of English’, UCLA doctoral dissertation.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    Bennet, M. (1979) ‘Mass nouns and mass terms in Montague grammar’, in S. Davis and M. Mithun (eds.), Linguistics, Philosophy, and Montague Grammar. University of Texas Press, Austin, pp. 263–286.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    Burton-Roberts, N. (1976) ‘On the generic indefinite article’, Language 52, 427–448.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    Carlson, G. (1977) ‘A unified analysis of the English bare plural’, Linguistics and Philosophy 1, 413–458.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    Carlson, G. (1979) ‘Generics and atemporal when’, Linguistics and Philosophy 3, 49–98.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    Carlson, G. (1980) Reference to Kinds of English, Garland Publishing, New York.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    Carlson, G. (1980) ‘Gnomic morphemes’, Paper presented at the Fourth Groningen Round Table, Groningen, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    Cartwright, H. ‘Amounts and measures of amount’, Noûs 9, 143–163.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    Cartwright, H. (1975) ‘Some remarks on mass nouns and plurality’, Synthese 30, 395–410.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    Chandler, H. S. (1975) ‘Rigid designation’, Journal of Philosophy 72, 363–368.Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    Chierchia, G. (1982) ‘Nominalization and Montague grammar: A semantics without types for natural languages’, To appear in Linguistics and Philosophy.Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    Clark, R. (1973) ‘Prima facie generalizations’, in G. Pearce and P. Maynard (eds.), Conceptual Change, D. Reidel, Dordrecht, pp. 42–54.Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    Cocchiarella, N. (1976) ‘On the logic of natural kinds’, Philosophy of Science 43, 202–222.Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    Cocchiarella, N. (1978) ‘On the logic of nominalized predicates and its philosophical interpretations’, Erkenntniss 13, 339–369.Google Scholar
  19. [19]
    Cocchiarella, N. (1979) ‘The theory of homogeneous simple types as a secondorder logic’, Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 20, 505–524.Google Scholar
  20. [20]
    Comrie, B. (1976) Aspect, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  21. [21]
    Dahl, O. (1975) ‘On generics’, in Keenan, Formal Semantics of Natural Language, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 99–111.Google Scholar
  22. [22]
    Davidson, D. (1969) ‘The individuation of events’ in N. Rescher (ed.), Essays in Honor of Carl G. Hempel, D. Reidel Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  23. [23]
    De Mey, S. (1980) ‘Stages and extensionality: The Carlson problem’, in S. Dualder and M. Gerritsen (eds.), Linguistics in the Netherlands 1980, North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp. 191–202.Google Scholar
  24. [24]
    De Mey, S. (1981) ‘Intensional and extensional interpretation in Montague grammar: Plurals and tenses’, in S. Dualder and M. Gerritsen (eds.) Linguistics in the Netherlands 1981, North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp. 181–192.Google Scholar
  25. [25]
    De Mey, S. (1982) ‘Aspects of the interpretation of bare plurals’ to appear in S. Dualder and M. Gerritsem (eds.), Linguistics in the Netherlands 1982, North-Holland, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  26. [26]
    Dowty, D. (1979) Word Meaning and Montague Grammar, D. Reidel, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  27. [27]
    Dupré, J. (1981) ‘Natural kinds and biological taxa’, Philosophical Review 90, 66–90.Google Scholar
  28. [28]
    Eberle, R. A. (1970) Nominalistic Systems, D. Reidel, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  29. [29]
    Enç, M. (1981) ‘Tense without scope: An analysis of nouns as indexicals”, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Wisconsin-Madison.Google Scholar
  30. [30]
    Farkas, D. (1981) ‘Intensionality and romance subjunctive relatives’, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Chicago.Google Scholar
  31. [31]
    Fetzer, J. H. and Nute, D. E., (1979) ‘Syntax, semantics, and ontology’, Synthese 40, 453–495.Google Scholar
  32. [32]
    Gabbay, D. and Moravscik, J. (1980) ‘Verbs, events, and the flow of time’, in C. Rohrer (ed.), Time, Tense, and Quantifiers, Max Niemeyer Verlag, Tübingen, pp. 59–84.Google Scholar
  33. [33]
    Ghiselin, M. (1975) ‘A radical solution to the species problem’, Systematic Zoology 23, 536–544.Google Scholar
  34. [34]
    Goodman, N. The Structure of Appearance, MIT Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  35. [35]
    Goosens, W. K. (1977) Underlying trait terms’, in S. P. Schwartz (ed.), Naming, Necessity, and Natural Kinds. Cornell Univ. Press, pp. 133–154.Google Scholar
  36. [36]
    Gupta, A. (1977) The Logic of Common Nouns: An Investigation into Quantified Modal Logic, doctoral dissertation, University of Pittsburgh.Google Scholar
  37. [37]
    Hiż, H. (1971) ‘On the abstractness of individuals’, in M. Munitz (ed.), Identity and Individuation, NYU Press, New York, pp. 251–261.Google Scholar
  38. [38]
    Hull, D. (1976) ‘Are species really individuals’? Systematic Zoology 25, 174–191.Google Scholar
  39. [39]
    Hull, D. (1978) ‘A matter of individuality’, Philosophy of Science 45, 335–360.Google Scholar
  40. [40]
    Jackdendoff, R. (1972) Semantic Interpretation in a Generative Grammar, MIT Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  41. [41]
    Karttunen, L. and Peters, S. (1979) ‘Conventional implicature’, in D. Dineen and C.-K. Oh (eds.), Presupposition: Syntax and Semantics 11, Academic Press, New York, pp. 1–56.Google Scholar
  42. [42]
    Kenny, A. (1963) Action Emotion, and Will, Humanities Press, New York.Google Scholar
  43. [43]
    Kitts, D. B. and Kitts, D. J. (1979) ‘Biological species as natural kinds’, Philosophy of Science 46, 613–622.Google Scholar
  44. [44]
    Kripke, S. (1972) ‘Naming and necessity’, in G. Harman and D. Davidson (eds.), Semantics of Natural Language. D. Reidel, Dordrecht, pp. 253–355.Google Scholar
  45. [45]
    Lawler, J. (1973) ‘Studies in English generics’, University of Michicagn Papers in Linguistics, 1: 1.Google Scholar
  46. [46]
    Lewis, D. (1975) ‘Adverbs of quantification’, in E. Keenan (ed.), Formal Semantics of Natural Language. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 3–15.Google Scholar
  47. [47]
    Lyons, J. (1977) Semantics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  48. [48]
    Milsark, G. (1974) ‘Existential sentences in English’, Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
  49. [49]
    Montague, R. (1970) ‘Reply to Moravscik’, in J. Hintikka, J. M. E. Moravcsik and P. Suppes (eds), Approaches to Natural Language, D. Reidel, Dordrecht, pp. 289–294.Google Scholar
  50. [50]
    Montague, R. (1974) ‘The proper treatment of quantification in ordinary English’, in R. Thomason (ed.), Formal Philosophy: Selected Papers of Richard Montague, Yale University Press, New Haven, pp. 247–270.Google Scholar
  51. [51]
    Moravcsik, J. M. E. and Gabbay, D. (1973) ‘Sameness and individuation’, Journal of Philosophy 70, 513–526.Google Scholar
  52. [52]
    Mourelatos, A. P. 1978) ‘Events, processes, and states’, Linguistics and Philosophy 2, 415–434.Google Scholar
  53. [53]
    Nunberg, G. and Pan, C. (1975) ‘Inferring quantification in generics sentences’, in R. Grossman et al. (eds.), papers from the Eleventh Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, CLS, Chicago, pp. 412–422.Google Scholar
  54. [54]
    Parsons, T. (1970) ‘An analysis of mass terms and amount terms’, Foundations of Language 6, 363–388.Google Scholar
  55. [55]
    Pollock, J. L. (1974) Knowledge and Justification, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.Google Scholar
  56. [56]
    Postal, P. (1969) ‘Anaphoric islands’, in R. Binnick et al. (eds), papers from the Fifth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, CLS, Chicago, pp. 205–239.Google Scholar
  57. [57]
    Putnam, H. (1975) ‘Is semantics possible’? in H. Putman Mind, Language, and Reality: Philosophical Papers Vol. 2, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 139–152.Google Scholar
  58. [58]
    Quine, W. V. O. (1960) Word and Object, MIT Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  59. [59]
    Quinton, A. (1979) ‘Object and events’, Mind 88, 197–214.Google Scholar
  60. [60]
    Russell, B. ‘On denoting’, Mind 14, 479–493.Google Scholar
  61. [61]
    Russell, B. (1956) Logic and Knowledge, Allen and Unwin, London.Google Scholar
  62. [62]
    Sag, I. ‘Deletion and logical form’ MIT Ph.D. dissertation, distributed by the Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
  63. [63]
    Smith, N. V. (1975) ‘On generics’, Transactions of the Philological Society, 1975, 27–48.Google Scholar
  64. [64]
    Strawson, P. F. (1959) Individuals, Methuen, London.Google Scholar
  65. [65]
    Stump, G. (1981) ‘The interpretation of frequency adjectives’, Linguistics and Philosophy 4, 221–258.Google Scholar
  66. [66]
    Stump, G. (1981) ‘The formal semantics and pragmatics of free adjuncts and absolutes in English’, Ohio State University Doctoral dissertation.Google Scholar
  67. [67]
    ter Meulen, A. (1980) ‘Substances, quantities, and individuals: A study in the formal semantics of mass terms’, Standard University, Ph.D. dissertation, distributed by the Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
  68. [68]
    ter Meulen, A. (1981) ‘An intensional logic for mass terms’, Philosophical Studies 40, 105–125.Google Scholar
  69. [69]
    Thalberg, I. (1980) ‘Can we get rid of events’? Analysis 40, 25–31.Google Scholar
  70. [70]
    Thomason, R. (1972) ‘A semantic theory of sortal incorrectness’, Journal of Philosophical Logic 1, 209–258.Google Scholar
  71. [71]
    Thomason, R. (1974) ‘On the semantic interpretation of the Thomason 1972 fragment', Distributed by the Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
  72. [72]
    Thomason, R. (1980) ‘A model theory for propositional attitudes’, Linguistics and Philosophy 4, 47–70.Google Scholar
  73. [73]
    Thrane, T. (1980) Referential-Semantic Analysis, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  74. [74]
    Tuomela, R. (ed.) (1978) Dispositions, D. Reidel, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  75. [75]
    Van Fraassen, B. (1968) ‘Presuppositions, implications, and self-reference’, Journal of Philosophy 65, 136–152.Google Scholar
  76. [76]
    Van Langendonck, W. (1980) ‘Indefinities, exemplars, and kinds’, in J.Van der Auwera (ed.), The Semantics of Determiners, Croom Helm, London, pp. 211–231.Google Scholar
  77. [77]
    Vendler, Z. (1957) ‘Verbs and times’. Philosophical Review 56, 143–160.Google Scholar
  78. [78]
    Verkuyl, H. J. (1972) On the Compositional Nature of the Aspects, D. Reidel, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  79. [79]
    Waldo, J. (1979) ‘A PTQ semantics for sortal incorrectness’, in S. Davis and M. Mithun (eds), Linguistics, Philosophy, and Montague Grammar, University of Texas Press, Austin, pp. 311–331.Google Scholar
  80. [80]
    Werth, P. (1980) ‘Articles of association: Determiners and context’, in J.Van der Auwera (ed.), The Semantics of Determiners, Croom Helm, London, pp. 250–289.Google Scholar
  81. [81]
    Whorf, B. (1945) ‘Grammatical categories’, Language 21, 1–11.Google Scholar
  82. [82]
    Wolterstorff, N. (1975) ‘Toward an ontology of art works’, Noûs 9, 115–142.Google Scholar
  83. [83]
    Zemach, E. (1975) ‘On the adequacy of a type ontology’, Synthese 31, 509–515.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© D. Reidel Publishing Co 1982

Authors and Affiliations

  • Greg N. Carlson
    • 1
  1. 1.University of Wisconsin-MadisonMadisonUSA

Personalised recommendations