Cover not available
Part of
Reference: From conventions to pragmatics
Edited by Laure Gardelle, Laurence Vincent-Durroux and Hélène Vinckel-Roisin
[Studies in Language Companion Series 228] 2023
► pp. 71–87

Lions, flowers and the Romans

Exception management with generic and other count plurals

| Université Grenoble Alpes, LIDILEM
Research on generic bare plurals has frequently pointed out that even though they refer to the whole class, in characterizing sentences (e.g. birds fly) they commonly license exceptions (Krifka et al. 1995). While quantification and probability models have failed to account for all uses, the present chapter argues that the “generics-as-default” approach of psychologists (e.g. Leslie 2007) provides a more convincing frame. It further argues that generalization does not concern just generic plurals, but also specific ones: plurals convey “homogenization.” The study introduces the key notion of “negligibility” for exception management. Analyses of examples in context show the role of speaker knowledge and beliefs, as well as contextual perspective, in establishing what is negligible or not.
Keywords: generics, generalizations, number, count plurals, exceptions
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Shortcomings of existing proportion and probability accounts of exception management with plurals
    • 2.1Asher & Pelletier (2012): The “normal worlds” approach
    • 2.2Radden (2009): The “salient proportion” approach
    • 2.3Cohen (1996, 2004)’s probabilistic approach
    • 2.4Leslie (2007, 2008)’s generics as default approach: “Low-level intuitive deductions”
    • 2.5Further proposal: “Homogenization” and the notion of negligibility
  • 3.Exception management in specific contexts
    • 3.1Plurals with distributive predicates
    • 3.2Collective predicates
  • 4.Exception management in characterizing sentences
    • 4.1Preliminaries: Understanding characterizing sentences
    • 4.2Distributive predicates with essential properties
    • 4.3Distributive predicates with non-essential properties
    • 4.4Collective responsibility
    • 4.5Averages and alternatives
  • Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 2 February 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.228.04gar
References (44)
References
Abbott, Barbara. 2010. Reference. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Asher, Nicholas & Morreau, Michael. 1995. What some generic sentences mean. In Carlson & Pelletier (eds), 300–339.Google Scholar
Asher, Nicholas & Pelletier, Francis Jeffry. 2012. More truths about generic truth. In Genericity, Alda Mari, Claire Beyssade & Fabio Del Prete (eds), 312–333. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas E., Johansson, Stig, Leech, Geoffrey, Conrad, Susan & Finegan, Edward. 1999. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow: Pearson Education. Also published as Biber, Douglas E., Johansson, Stig, Leech, Geoffrey, Conrad, Susan & Finegan, Edward. 2021. Grammar of Spoken and Written English. John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brandone, Amanda C., Cimpian, Andrei, Leslie, Sarah-Jane & Gelman, Susan A. 2012. Do lions have manes? For children, generics are about kinds rather than quantities. Child Development 83(2): 423–433. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carlson, Greg N. 1977. A unified analysis of the English bare plural. Linguistics and Philosophy 1(3): 413–456. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1995. Truth conditions of generic sentences: two contrasting views. In Carlson & Pelletier (eds), 224–299.Google Scholar
Carlson, Greg N. & Pelletier, Frances Jeffry (eds). 1995. The Generic Book. Chicago IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Children’s Radio UK. 2021. Top ten facts about the Romans! Fun Kids. <[URL]> (12 August 2022).
Cimpian, Andrei, Brandone, Amanda C. & Gelman, Susan A. 2010. Generic statements require little evidence for acceptance but have powerful implications. Cognitive Science 34(8): 1452–1482. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Claybourne, Anne. 2013. A Colony of Ants and Other Insect Groups. London: Raintree.Google Scholar
Cohen, Ariel. 1996. Think Generic: The Meaning and Use of Generic Sentences. PhD dissertation, Carnegie Mellon University.
. 2004. Existential generics. Linguistics and Philosophy 27: 137–168. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Corbett, Greville G. 2000. Number. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cornish, Francis. 1999. Anaphora, Discourse, and Understanding: Evidence from English and French. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Finegan, Edward. 2008. Language: Its Structure and Use, 5th edn. Boston MA: Thomson Wadsworth.Google Scholar
Galmiche, Michel. 1985. Phrases, syntagmes et articles génériques. Générique et Généricité. Langages 79: 2–39. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gary-Prieur, Marie-Noëlle. 1990. Le pluriel des articles: Morphologie et sémantique. L’Information Grammaticale 45: 3–7. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gelman, Susan A. 2003. The Essential Child. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gelman, Susan A., Star, Jon R. & Flukes, Jonathan E. 2002. Children’s use of generics in inductive inference. Journal of Cognition and Development 3(2): 179–199. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hollander, Michelle A., Gelman, Susan A., & Star, Jon R. 2002. Children’s interpretation of generic noun phrases. Developmental Psychology 38: 883–894. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Holmes, Kevin J. 1999. Lions. Mankato MN: Bridgestone.Google Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney & Pullum, Geoffrey K. 2002. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jones, Rod. 2001. Caring for Cut Flowers, 2nd edn. Collingwood: Landlinks.Google Scholar
Kibrik, Andrej A. 2011. Reference in Discourse. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Krifka, Manfred, Pelletier, Francis Jeffry, Carlson, Gregory N., ter Meulen, Alice, Cherchia, Gennaro & Link, Godehard. 1995. Genericity: An introduction. In Carlson & Pelletier (eds), 1–124.Google Scholar
Landmann, Fred. 2000. Events and Plurality: The Jerusalem Lectures. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1995. A constraint in progressive generics. In Conceptual Structure, Discourse and Language, Adèle E. Goldberg (ed.), 289–302. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Lawler, John M. 1997. Re: A question about the generic use of articles. Ask a Linguist, May 1997. <[URL]> (12 August 2022).
Learning House. 2017. Online college students 2017: Comprehensive data on demands and preferences, 24 July 2017. <[URL]> (12 August 2022).
Leslie, Sarah-Jane. 2007. Generics and the structure of the mind. Philosophical Perspectives 21: 375–403. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008. Generics: Cognition and acquisition. Philosophical Review 117(1):1–47. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. Generics articulate default generalizations. Recherches Linguistiques de Vincennes (New Perspectives on Genericity at the Interfaces) 41: 25–44. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Link, Godehard. 1983. The logical analysis of plurals and mass terms: a lattice theoretical approach. In Meaning, Use and Interpretation of Language, Rainer Bäuerle, Christoph Schwarze & Arnim von Stechow (eds), 302–323. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mari, Alda. 2012. Introduction. Recherches Linguistiques de Vincennes (New Perspectives on Genericity at the Interfaces) 41: 5–8. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mari, Alda, Beyssade, Claire & Del Prete, Fabio (eds). 2012. Genericity. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nickel, Bernhard. 2008. Generics and the ways of normality. Linguistics and Philosophy 31: 629–648. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Parfitt, Tom. 2012. Boris Nemtsov murder: Two held “may be hired hitmen.” The Telegraph, 7 March 2015. <[URL]> (12 August 2022).
Pelletier, Francis Jeffry & Asher, Nicholas. 1997. Generics and defaults. In Handbook of Logic and Language, Johan van Benthem & Alice ter Meulen (eds), 1125–1179. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Radden, Günter. 2009. Generic reference in English: A metonymic and conceptual blending analysis. In Metonymy and Metaphor in Grammar [Human Cognitive Processing 25], Klaus-Uwe Panther, Linda L. Thornburg & Antonio Barcelona (eds), 199–228. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roeper, Thomas, Strauss, Uri & Pearson, Barbara Zurer. 2006. The acquisition path of the determiner quantifier every: Two kinds of spreading. In Current Issues in First Language Acquisition [University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers 34], Tanja Heizmann (ed.), 97–129. Amherst MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
Schubert, Lenhart K. & Pelletier, Francis Jeffry. 1987. Problems in the representation of the logical form of generics, bare plurals, and mass terms. In New Directions in Semantics, Ernest LePore (ed.), 387–453. New York NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Taylor, Yvonne. 2014. The Saffron Connection. Bloomington IN: AuthorHouse.Google Scholar
Von Behren, Meghan. 2018. Preparing to protect against mosquitoes. KFYR-TV, 10 July 2018. <[URL]> (12 August 2022).
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Huang, Sa, F. Neveu, S. Prévost, A. Montébran, A. Steuckardt, G. Bergounioux, G. Merminod & G. Philippe
2024. L’article défini pluriel en français dans une perspective sémantico-cognitive. SHS Web of Conferences 191 ► pp. 12009 ff. DOI logo
Lecolle, Michelle
2023. Human collective nouns and plural definite noun phrases. In Reference [Studies in Language Companion Series, 228], ► pp. 153 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.