In this book, Yael Greenberg discusses and clarifies a number of controversial issues and phenomena in the generic literature, including the existence of ...

This paper deals with the exceptions-tolerance property of generic sentences with indefinite singular and bare plural subjects (IS and BP generics, respectively) and with the way this property is connected to some well-known observations about felicity differences between the two types of generics (e.g. Lawler's 1973, Madrigals are popular vs. #A madrigal is popular). I show that whereas both IS and BP generics tolerate exceptional and contextually irrelevant individuals and situations in a strikingly similar way, which indicates the existence of (...) a basically equivalent tolerance mechanism, there is also a difference between them, unnoticed so far, which concerns the degree to which the properties of the legitimate exceptions can be characterized in advance. Following claims in Greenberg (2003), I argue that both this newly observed difference as well as the traditional felicity differences result from an underlying contrast in the type of ‘non-accidentalness’ expressed by the two types of generic sentences, and more formally, in the accessibility relations that their generic quantifier (Gen) is compatible with. To capture the new difference in tolerance of exceptions, I develop an improved version of the exceptions-tolerance mechanism for generic sentences suggested in Kadmon & Landman (1993), namely, a restriction on the set of individuals and situations quantified by Gen, which is partially vague to two different degrees using supervaluationist methods. The different degrees of vagueness in this restriction are shown to be systematically dependent on the two types of accessibility relations that IS and BP generics are compatible with, which are redefined as precise and vague restrictions on the generic quantification over worlds. (shrink)

This paper concentrates on giving precise content to the general wisdom on the scalar presupposition of even, according to which the prejacent of even, p, is stronger than its relevant focus alternatives, q. To that end I first examine both familiar challenges for the popular ‘comparative likelihood’ view of the ‘stronger than’ relation, as well as novel challenges, having to do with the context dependency of even and with its sensitivity to standards of comparison. To overcome these challenges and to (...) account for the full range of data I develop a revised, ‘gradability-based’ scalar presupposition for even, which differs from the ‘comparative likelihood’ one in several respects: instead of directly comparing degrees to which propositions are more or less likely, we compare extents to which non-focus entities x in p and q exceed the salient standard on a scale associated with a contextually supplied gradable property G. To capture cases where information about contrastive topics is crucial for fixing two distinct standards on G, I follow theories which view even as a general, two-place alternative-sensitive operator, allowing it to associate with both focus and contrastive topics. Beyond the ability to account for a large range of intricate felicity variations and inferences found with even, a more general contribution of the paper lies in showing the linguistic relevance of tools originally developed in the literature on gradable predicates to the semantics of scalar alternative–sensitive particles. (shrink)

An old observation about the focus sensitive particles _only_ and _even_ is that they are in some sense scalar antonyms. We examine three schematic proposals raised in the literature to capture this observation, namely that _only_ vs. _even_ presuppose that the proposition denoted by their prejacent, _p_, is lower vs. higher, respectively _(A)_ than _what is EXPECTED/the default STANDARD_ ( the ‘mirative/evaluative antonymy’ view ), _(B)_ than _SOME (salient) alternative_ in the set of contextually relevant focus alternatives, C, ( the (...) ‘existential antonymy’ view ), or _(C)_ than _ALL alternatives_ in C ( the ‘superlative antonymy’ view ). To tease these views apart, we examine the behavior of _only_ vs. _even_ in a wide range of contexts and types of discourse, concentrating on the way the C set of contextually relevant alternatives with _only_ _(C)_ _(p)_ and _even_ _(C)_ _(p)_ is constrained by the interaction of (i) previously uttered sentences and (ii) the salient QUD. Based on these examinations we argue for the preferability of the ‘superlative antonymy’ view of _only_ and _even_. In contrast, we argue that the ‘existential’ antonymy and the ‘mirative/evaluative’ antonymy between _only_ and _even_ are apparent. The former only holds in specific contexts where one alternative to _p_ is made maximally salient. As to the latter, we show that while an evaluative (‘above the standard’ / ‘a lot’) inference is hardwired into the scalar presupposition of _even_, alongside the superlative inference, the mirror imaged one (‘below the standard’ / ‘a little’) is cancellable for _only_. We propose that this inference can be derived from the interaction of the superlative scalar presupposition of _only_ and domain based constraints on alternatives in C. (shrink)