File Download

There are no files associated with this item.

  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Article: Generics, Covert Structure and Logical Form

TitleGenerics, Covert Structure and Logical Form
Authors
Issue Date2016
Citation
Mind and Language, 2016, v. 31, n. 5, p. 503-529 How to Cite?
Abstract© 2016 John Wiley & Sons Ltd The standard view amongst philosophers of language and linguists is that the logical form of generics is quantificational and contains a covert, unpronounced quantifier expression Gen. Recently, some theorists have begun to question the standard view and rekindle the competing proposal, that generics are a species of kind-predication. These theorists offer some forceful objections to the standard view, and new strategies for dealing with the abundance of linguistic evidence in favour of the standard view. I respond to these objections and show that their strategies fail. I offer a novel argument in favour of the standard view that I call the binder argument. The upshot of this argument is that if one rejects the existence of Gen, then one is committed to rejecting the existence of covert structure in general (including domain variables and implicit argument places).
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/286933
ISSN
2023 Impact Factor: 1.8
2023 SCImago Journal Rankings: 1.626
ISI Accession Number ID

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorSterken, Rachel Katharine-
dc.date.accessioned2020-09-07T11:46:03Z-
dc.date.available2020-09-07T11:46:03Z-
dc.date.issued2016-
dc.identifier.citationMind and Language, 2016, v. 31, n. 5, p. 503-529-
dc.identifier.issn0268-1064-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/286933-
dc.description.abstract© 2016 John Wiley & Sons Ltd The standard view amongst philosophers of language and linguists is that the logical form of generics is quantificational and contains a covert, unpronounced quantifier expression Gen. Recently, some theorists have begun to question the standard view and rekindle the competing proposal, that generics are a species of kind-predication. These theorists offer some forceful objections to the standard view, and new strategies for dealing with the abundance of linguistic evidence in favour of the standard view. I respond to these objections and show that their strategies fail. I offer a novel argument in favour of the standard view that I call the binder argument. The upshot of this argument is that if one rejects the existence of Gen, then one is committed to rejecting the existence of covert structure in general (including domain variables and implicit argument places).-
dc.languageeng-
dc.relation.ispartofMind and Language-
dc.titleGenerics, Covert Structure and Logical Form-
dc.typeArticle-
dc.description.naturelink_to_subscribed_fulltext-
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/mila.12118-
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-84994126505-
dc.identifier.volume31-
dc.identifier.issue5-
dc.identifier.spage503-
dc.identifier.epage529-
dc.identifier.eissn1468-0017-
dc.identifier.isiWOS:000389132400001-
dc.identifier.issnl0268-1064-

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats