Generics Are a Cognitive Default: Evidence From Sentence Processing (original) (raw)

Abstract

Generics Are a Cognitive Default: Evidence From Sentence Processing Meredith Meyer (mermeyer@umich.edu), Susan A. Gelman (gelman@umich.edu), and Sarah M. Stilwell (stilwell@umich.edu) Department of Psychology, 530 Church Street Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1043 USA Abstract sentence Dogs have four legs as Most dogs have four legs, sets quantified by most similarly do not equate to the referents of generics. Consider, for instance, that although Sharks attack swimmers is often judged as acceptable, Most sharks attack swimmers is not. Generics are thus not reducible to quantifiers conveying statistical prevalence (e.g., Cimpian, Gelman, & Brandone, 2010). Noting these sorts of distinctions, most semantic analyses impute qualitative differences between generic and quantified reference (Carlson, 2010; Leslie, 2008) and reject earlier quantificational analyses treating generics as if they contained implicit quantification (e.g., Clark, 1973). Generics instead are kind-referring (Carlson, 2010), a...

Figures (3)

Loading...

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

References (16)

  1. Carlson, G. (2010). Generics and concepts. In F. J. Pelletier (Ed.), Kinds, things, and stuff. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
  2. Carpenter, P., & Just, M. A. (1975). Sentence comprehension: A psycholinguistic model of sentence verification. Psychological Review, 82, 45-73.
  3. Cimpian, A., Gelman, S. A., & Brandone, A. C. (2010). Theory-based considerations influence the interpretation of generic sentences. Language and Cognitive Processes, 25, 261-276.
  4. Clark, R. (1973), Prima facie generalisations. In G. Pearce & P. Maynard (Eds.), Conceptual change. Dordrecht: Reidel.
  5. Gelman, S. A. (2003). The essential child: Origins of essentialism in everyday thought. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
  6. Gelman, S. A. (2004). Psychological essentialism in children. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8, 404-409.
  7. Gelman, S. A., Coley, J. D., Rosengren, K., Hartman, E., & Pappas, T. (1998). Beyond labeling: The role of parental input in the acquisition of richly structured categories. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, Serial No. 253, Vol. 63.
  8. Gelman, S. A., & Tardif, T. Z. (1998). Generic noun phrases in English and Mandarin: An examination of child- directed speech. Cognition, 66, 215-248.
  9. Goldin-Meadow, S., Gelman, S. A., & Mylander, C. (2005). Expressing generic concepts with and without a language model. Cognition, 96, 109-126.
  10. Hollander, M. A., Gelman, S. A., & Star, J. (2002). Children's interpretations of generic noun phrases. Developmental Psychology, 38, 883-894.
  11. Khemlani, S., Leslie, S. J., & Glucksberg, S. (2009). Generics, prevalence, and default inferences. In Proceedings of the 31st Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, Amsterdam, Cognitive Science Society.
  12. Leslie, S. J. (2008). Generics: Cognition and acquisition. Philosophical Review, 117, 1-47.
  13. Leslie, S. J., & Gelman, S. A. (2011). Quantified statements are recalled as generics: Evidence from preschool children and adults. Unpublished ms., Princeton University.
  14. Levinson, S. C. (2000). Presumptive meanings. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  15. Pelletier, F. J. (2010). Kinds, things, and stuff: Mass terms and generics. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
  16. Prasada, S., Salajegheh, A., Bowles, A., & Poeppel, D. (2008). Characterizing kinds and instances of kinds: ERP reflections. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23, 1-15.