Browsing by Author "Goddard, Quinn"
Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
Results Per Page
Sort Options
- ItemOpen AccessCalgary Working Papers in Linguistics, Volume 32, Spring 2022(2022-03) Nelson, BrettC; Abdalla, Summer; Boyede, Charles; Goddard, Quinn; Xu, KangWe, the editors, are pleased to present the thirty-second volume of the Calgary Working Papers in Linguistics (CWPL). CWPL is a publication affiliated with the School of Languages, Linguistics, Literatures and Cultures (SLLLC) at the University of Calgary, focusing on recent and ongoing work in linguistics and related disciplines by researchers affiliated with the University of Calgary. This and all previous volumes of CWPL since Volume 1 (originally published in print in 1975) are digitally stored in PRISM: The University of Calgary Digital Repository and can be accessed at: http://dspace.ucalgary.ca/handle/1880/. Before further discussing the papers in this volume, we would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge that the University of Calgary and city of Calgary, called Mohkinstsis in Blackfoot, exists within the traditional territories of the people of the Treaty 7 region in Southern Alberta, which includes the Blackfoot Confederacy (comprising the Siksika, Piikani, and Kainai First Nations), the Tsuut’ina First Nation, and the Stoney Nakoda (including the Chiniki, Bearspaw, and Wesley First Nations). The city of Calgary is also home to members of Métis Nation of Alberta, Region 3. Each paper submitted to Volume 32 has been reviewed and edited by two editors, all graduate students of linguistics at the University of Calgary. It should be noted that the papers published in CWPL represent works in progress and should not be considered as final or definitive papers. Therefore, publication in CWPL does not preclude submission of further revisions of the same papers to another journal or publication. Volume 32 contains three papers from both undergraduate and graduate students at the SLLLC. These papers explore topics in phonology, dialectology, nominal syntax, and particle syntax. The languages featured in this volume include Spanish and Mandarin Chinese. Finally, we thank and express our most sincere gratitude to all contributors, editors, and advisors and supervisors of those contributors and editors for their time, effort, and patience in their participation in the editing and publishing process of this volume. This continuation of CWPL’s longstanding tradition at the University of Calgary would be impossible without you and your work.
- ItemOpen AccessOn Indefinite Singular Generics(2023-06-06) Goddard, Quinn; Liebesman, David; Liebesman, David; Ritter, Elizabeth Ann; Storoshenko, Dennis RyanConsider a simple statement like 'A dog has four legs', which, under a generic reading, is an example of an Indefinite Singular (IS) generic. Different varieties of generics are differentiated by their subject nominal type; for instance, English has both the indefinite singular and bare plural (BP) generic (e.g. 'Dogs have four legs'). Crucially, IS generics have a more limited distribution than their BP counterparts. A myriad of theories have been posited to explain this, characterizing IS generics as expressing, inter alia, “rules and regulations” (Cohen, 2001), or “in-virtue-of” (Greenberg, 2003), “non-accidental” (Lawler, 1973) or “definitional” (Krifka, 2013) properties. However, no existing account captures the full variety of data. I introduce the idea that IS generics discuss samples (Elgin, 1983; Goodman, 1976) (objects which exemplify one or more properties in a given context), or more specifically abstract samples, which are mental entities. Uttering an IS generic is argued to constitute a speech act that contributes an abstract sample to the discourse, one which is deemed felicitous if it is judged to be a “good sample”, that is, one which is reflective of the kind so as to not seem like “false advertising”. Speaker intent selects the exemplified properties, as well enforces that they are characteristic of the kind (at least according to the speaker’s point of view). This degree of speaker commitment to the generalization is precisely what distinguishes IS generics from their BP counterparts. I additionally argue that characterizations of truth evaluation for IS generics in terms of being “accepted by the language community” (Cohen, 2001, p. 199) are far too broad, and that instead acceptability should be judged on a much smaller (e.g. speaker-specific) scale, meaning the use and evaluation of an IS generic is relativized to individual perspective (cf. Mari, 2008).