Relative Readings of Many, Often, and Generics
- 213 Downloads
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)
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Chierchia, G.: 1992, ‘Anaphora and Dynamic Binding’, Linguistics and Philosophy 15, 111–183.Google Scholar
- Cohen, A.: 1996, Think Generic: The Meaning and Use of Generic Sentences, PhD dissertation, Carnegie–Mellon University, Pittsburgh. Published by CSLI, Stanford, 1999.Google Scholar
- Cohen, A.: 1999a, ‘Generics, Frequency Adverbs, and Probability’, Linguistics and Philosophy 22, 221–253.Google Scholar
- Cohen, A.: 1999b, ‘How Are Alternatives Computed?’, Journal of Semantics 16, 43–65.Google Scholar
- Cohen A.: to appear, ‘On the Generic Use of Indefinite Singulars’, to appear in Journal of Semantics.Google Scholar
- Eckardt, R.: 1994, ‘Adverbs in Focus’, technical report, Project Dyana, Universität Tübingen.Google Scholar
- Erteschik–Shir, N.: 1997, The Dynamics of Focus Structure. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
- 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.Google Scholar
- 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.Google Scholar
- 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.Google Scholar
- Herburger, E.: 1997, ‘Focus and Weak Noun Phrases’, Natural Language Semantics 5, 53–78.Google Scholar
- 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.Google Scholar
- Keenan, E. L. and L. M. Faltz: 1985, Boolean Semantics for Natural Language. Reidel, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
- 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.Google Scholar
- 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.Google Scholar
- Lappin, S.: 1988, ‘The Semantics of Many as a Weak Quantifier’, Linguistics 26, 1021–1037.Google Scholar
- 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.Google Scholar
- Lappin, S.: 2000, ‘An Intensional Parametric Semantics for Vague Quantifiers’, Linguistics and Philosophy 23, 599–620.Google Scholar
- Lawler, J.: 1973, Studies in English Generics, PhD dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
- Milsark, G.: 1977, ‘Toward an Explanation of Certain Peculiarities of the Existential Construction in English’, Linguistic Analysis 3, 1–29.Google Scholar
- 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.Google Scholar
- Reinhart, T.: 1981, ‘Pragmatics and Linguistics: An Analysis of Sentence Topics’, Philosophica 27, 53–94.Google Scholar
- Rooth, M. E.: 1985, Association with Focus, PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.Google Scholar
- 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.Google Scholar
- de Swart, H.: 1991, Adverbs of Quantification: A Generalized Quantifier Approach, PhD dissertation, Groningen University. Also published by Garland, New York, 1993.Google Scholar
- 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.Google Scholar
- Westerståhl, D.: 1985b, ‘Logical Constants in Quantifier Languages’, Linguistics and Philosophy 8, 387–413.Google Scholar
- Wilkinson, K.: 1991, Studies in the Semantics of Generic Noun Phrases, PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.Google Scholar