Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Generic terms and generic sentences

  • Published:
Journal of Philosophical Logic Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Bibliography

  1. Bacon, J. (1973) ‘Do generic descriptions denote’? Mind 82, 331–347.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Bacon, J. (1974) ‘The untenability of genera’, Logique et Analyse 65, 197–208.

    Google Scholar 

  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. 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. Bennett, M. (1974) ‘Some extensions of a Montague fragment of English’, UCLA doctoral dissertation.

  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. Burton-Roberts, N. (1976) ‘On the generic indefinite article’, Language 52, 427–448.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Carlson, G. (1977) ‘A unified analysis of the English bare plural’, Linguistics and Philosophy 1, 413–458.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Carlson, G. (1979) ‘Generics and atemporal when’, Linguistics and Philosophy 3, 49–98.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Carlson, G. (1980) Reference to Kinds of English, Garland Publishing, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Carlson, G. (1980) ‘Gnomic morphemes’, Paper presented at the Fourth Groningen Round Table, Groningen, The Netherlands.

  12. Cartwright, H. ‘Amounts and measures of amount’, Noûs 9, 143–163.

  13. Cartwright, H. (1975) ‘Some remarks on mass nouns and plurality’, Synthese 30, 395–410.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Chandler, H. S. (1975) ‘Rigid designation’, Journal of Philosophy 72, 363–368.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Chierchia, G. (1982) ‘Nominalization and Montague grammar: A semantics without types for natural languages’, To appear in Linguistics and Philosophy.

  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. Cocchiarella, N. (1976) ‘On the logic of natural kinds’, Philosophy of Science 43, 202–222.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Cocchiarella, N. (1978) ‘On the logic of nominalized predicates and its philosophical interpretations’, Erkenntniss 13, 339–369.

    Google Scholar 

  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. Comrie, B. (1976) Aspect, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Dahl, O. (1975) ‘On generics’, in Keenan, Formal Semantics of Natural Language, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 99–111.

    Google Scholar 

  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. 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. 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. 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. Dowty, D. (1979) Word Meaning and Montague Grammar, D. Reidel, Dordrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Dupré, J. (1981) ‘Natural kinds and biological taxa’, Philosophical Review 90, 66–90.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Eberle, R. A. (1970) Nominalistic Systems, D. Reidel, Dordrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Enç, M. (1981) ‘Tense without scope: An analysis of nouns as indexicals”, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Wisconsin-Madison.

  30. Farkas, D. (1981) ‘Intensionality and romance subjunctive relatives’, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Chicago.

  31. Fetzer, J. H. and Nute, D. E., (1979) ‘Syntax, semantics, and ontology’, Synthese 40, 453–495.

    Google Scholar 

  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. Ghiselin, M. (1975) ‘A radical solution to the species problem’, Systematic Zoology 23, 536–544.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Goodman, N. The Structure of Appearance, MIT Press, Cambridge.

  35. Goosens, W. K. (1977) Underlying trait terms’, in S. P. Schwartz (ed.), Naming, Necessity, and Natural Kinds. Cornell Univ. Press, pp. 133–154.

  36. Gupta, A. (1977) The Logic of Common Nouns: An Investigation into Quantified Modal Logic, doctoral dissertation, University of Pittsburgh.

  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. Hull, D. (1976) ‘Are species really individuals’? Systematic Zoology 25, 174–191.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Hull, D. (1978) ‘A matter of individuality’, Philosophy of Science 45, 335–360.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Jackdendoff, R. (1972) Semantic Interpretation in a Generative Grammar, MIT Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  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. Kenny, A. (1963) Action Emotion, and Will, Humanities Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Kitts, D. B. and Kitts, D. J. (1979) ‘Biological species as natural kinds’, Philosophy of Science 46, 613–622.

    Google Scholar 

  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. Lawler, J. (1973) ‘Studies in English generics’, University of Michicagn Papers in Linguistics, 1: 1.

    Google Scholar 

  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. Lyons, J. (1977) Semantics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Milsark, G. (1974) ‘Existential sentences in English’, Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.

  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. 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. Moravcsik, J. M. E. and Gabbay, D. (1973) ‘Sameness and individuation’, Journal of Philosophy 70, 513–526.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Mourelatos, A. P. 1978) ‘Events, processes, and states’, Linguistics and Philosophy 2, 415–434.

    Google Scholar 

  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.

  54. Parsons, T. (1970) ‘An analysis of mass terms and amount terms’, Foundations of Language 6, 363–388.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Pollock, J. L. (1974) Knowledge and Justification, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.

    Google Scholar 

  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.

  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. Quine, W. V. O. (1960) Word and Object, MIT Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Quinton, A. (1979) ‘Object and events’, Mind 88, 197–214.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Russell, B. ‘On denoting’, Mind 14, 479–493.

  61. Russell, B. (1956) Logic and Knowledge, Allen and Unwin, London.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Sag, I. ‘Deletion and logical form’ MIT Ph.D. dissertation, distributed by the Indiana University Linguistics Club.

  63. Smith, N. V. (1975) ‘On generics’, Transactions of the Philological Society, 1975, 27–48.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Strawson, P. F. (1959) Individuals, Methuen, London.

    Google Scholar 

  65. Stump, G. (1981) ‘The interpretation of frequency adjectives’, Linguistics and Philosophy 4, 221–258.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Stump, G. (1981) ‘The formal semantics and pragmatics of free adjuncts and absolutes in English’, Ohio State University Doctoral dissertation.

  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.

  68. ter Meulen, A. (1981) ‘An intensional logic for mass terms’, Philosophical Studies 40, 105–125.

    Google Scholar 

  69. Thalberg, I. (1980) ‘Can we get rid of events’? Analysis 40, 25–31.

    Google Scholar 

  70. Thomason, R. (1972) ‘A semantic theory of sortal incorrectness’, Journal of Philosophical Logic 1, 209–258.

    Google Scholar 

  71. Thomason, R. (1974) ‘On the semantic interpretation of the Thomason 1972 fragment', Distributed by the Indiana University Linguistics Club.

  72. Thomason, R. (1980) ‘A model theory for propositional attitudes’, Linguistics and Philosophy 4, 47–70.

    Google Scholar 

  73. Thrane, T. (1980) Referential-Semantic Analysis, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  74. Tuomela, R. (ed.) (1978) Dispositions, D. Reidel, Dordrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  75. Van Fraassen, B. (1968) ‘Presuppositions, implications, and self-reference’, Journal of Philosophy 65, 136–152.

    Google Scholar 

  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. Vendler, Z. (1957) ‘Verbs and times’. Philosophical Review 56, 143–160.

    Google Scholar 

  78. Verkuyl, H. J. (1972) On the Compositional Nature of the Aspects, D. Reidel, Dordrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  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. 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. Whorf, B. (1945) ‘Grammatical categories’, Language 21, 1–11.

    Google Scholar 

  82. Wolterstorff, N. (1975) ‘Toward an ontology of art works’, Noûs 9, 115–142.

    Google Scholar 

  83. Zemach, E. (1975) ‘On the adequacy of a type ontology’, Synthese 31, 509–515.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, USA

    Greg N. Carlson

Authors
  1. Greg N. Carlson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Carlson, G.N. Generic terms and generic sentences. J Philos Logic 11, 145–181 (1982). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00278382

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00278382

Keywords

Search

Navigation