On Indefinite Singular Generics

Goddard, Quinn

On Indefinite Singular Generics

dc.contributor.advisor	Liebesman, David
dc.contributor.author	Goddard, Quinn
dc.contributor.committeemember	Liebesman, David
dc.contributor.committeemember	Ritter, Elizabeth Ann
dc.contributor.committeemember	Storoshenko, Dennis Ryan
dc.date	2023-11
dc.date.accessioned	2023-06-09T18:12:26Z
dc.date.available	2023-06-09T18:12:26Z
dc.date.issued	2023-06-06
dc.description.abstract	Consider 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).
dc.identifier.citation	Goddard, Q. (2023). On indefinite singular generics (Master's thesis, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada). Retrieved from https://prism.ucalgary.ca.
dc.identifier.uri	https://hdl.handle.net/1880/116608
dc.identifier.uri	https://dx.doi.org/10.11575/PRISM/41451
dc.language.iso	en
dc.publisher.faculty	Graduate Studies
dc.publisher.institution	University of Calgary
dc.rights	University of Calgary graduate students retain copyright ownership and moral rights for their thesis. You may use this material in any way that is permitted by the Copyright Act or through licensing that has been assigned to the document. For uses that are not allowable under copyright legislation or licensing, you are required to seek permission.
dc.subject	generics
dc.subject	indefinite singular generics
dc.subject	samples
dc.subject	semantics
dc.subject	pragmatics
dc.subject.classification	Linguistics
dc.title	On Indefinite Singular Generics
dc.type	master thesis
thesis.degree.discipline	Linguistics
thesis.degree.grantor	University of Calgary
thesis.degree.name	Master of Arts (MA)
ucalgary.thesis.accesssetbystudent	I do not require a thesis withhold – my thesis will have open access and can be viewed and downloaded publicly as soon as possible.