1. Introduction
A central topic in the literature on genericity is how different types of languages refer to kinds. In this respect, a well-established assumption, since Carlson (1977/1980), is that bare plurals (BPs) in English (E) allow for a generic use, a reading that arises because BPs are taken to denote a particular type of entity: names of kinds of things. This view reflects the fact that BPs in E may occur as arguments of generic sentences (with kind-level and individual-level predicates).
However, a still unresolved and poorly understood phenomenon is the question why E also allows the use of definite generics, as pointed out by Carlson (1977/1980:274-280) and Chierchia (1998:379-383):
|
(1) |
a. |
The owl is common/widespread/fast disappearing/often intelligent. |
|
|
|
(Carlson 1977/1980:276, (32a)) |
|
|
b. |
Owls are common/widespread/fast disappearing/often intelligent. |
|
|
|
(Carlson 1977/1980:276, (32b)) |
In this paper we will challenge the standard assumption that the generic or kind reading for ...