Abstract
This paper discusses free-choice like effects in generics. Just as Jane may drink coffee or tea can be used to convey Jane may drink coffee and Jane may drink tea (she is “free to choose”), some generics with disjunctive predicates can be used to convey conjunctions of simpler generics: elephants live in Africa or Asia can be used to convey elephants live in Africa and elephants live in Asia. Investigating these logically slightly more complex generics and especially the free-choice like effects throws light on both the semantics of generics and the interaction between world knowledge and the interpretive options generics offer. This paper presents a package of semantic and pragmatic hypotheses to account for the data, including why the effect is absent in the superficially logically similar elephants live in Africa or give birth to live young.
Highlights
As is well known, disjunctions often convey the denials of corresponding conjunctions
I’ve argued that we can account for the possibility of conjunctive strengthening of the former, as well as the impossibility of the strengthening for the latter, using five basic ideas: we interpret generics in terms of a sophisticated notion of normality that (1) makes reference to respects of normality and (2) recognizes ways of being normal in a given respect
(5) Conjunctive strengthening arises in accordance with Fox’s account. Each of these five building blocks can be motivated on grounds that are independent of the specific phenomena discussed here. The fact that they account for conjunctive strengthening in generics adds credibility to their applications in other contexts
Summary
Disjunctions often convey the denials of corresponding conjunctions. When (1) is asserted by a speaker with the authority to give the relevant permission, it usually conveys the conjunction of (1a) and (1b), though it does not convey that Jane may have both.. Asserting the clausal disjunction of (1a) and (1b), Jane may have coffee or Jane may have tea does not convey such freedom of choice. Just as in the case of permissions, the disjunction in the verb-phrase (VP) gives rise to a clausal conjunction, and we cannot validly infer from the clausal conjunction to a phrasal conjunction, e.g., we cannot infer from (3a)-(3c) that cactus flowers are red, white, and yellow in the sense that individual flowers are all three colors. Asserting the disjunction of (2a) and (2b), elephants live in Africa or elephants live in Asia does not convey their conjunction. I hope that showing these hypotheses to work together to account for the data I discuss in this paper will serve to provide some additional support
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
