ceg chapter 4 generic reference

11.04.23 Generic reference 1

Generic reference


The two basic types of reference

reference

individuative generic

These lawyers are crooks. Lawyers are crooks.

Can someone identify what kind of snake this is?


Can anyone identify this snake? I found it in Lewis's backyard and was scared out of my mind.It’s about 6 feet long. We had tried to contact Animal Control but they said they wouldn't be able to come out until Monday, and we found it Friday afternoon after 5. Scary as hell!!

Interdependence of instance and type

“A type conception is immanent in the conception of an instance.”

(Langacker 1991: 62)

“Any specific instantiation of a class calls forth the whole class.”

(Norrick 1981: 35)


Ambiguity

„I really like this car.”

Does he like a particular car ?

or

Does he like the make of this car?

or

Does he like both the particular car and the make?


11.04.23 Generic reference

this jacket

This jacket is our best! We have combined POLARTEC INDBLOC® with waterproof, abrasion resistant STORM-

TECH® nylon. This jacket is loaded with features for the toughest of all outdoor adventures.

6


This jacket is our best-selling item.

“The salesman intends to convey, not that the particular jacket has been sold many times, but that the jackets made to that design have sold well.“

(Taylor 1993: 123)

Metonymy: INSTANCE FOR TYPE


The lion has a mane

Female (lioness)

A maneless male lion, who also has little body hair—from Tsavo East National Park, Kenya

Male lion


The (prototypical) lion has a mane


The lion has a bushy mane.

A generic statement is not the same as a universal set:

*All lions have a bushy tail.

Generic statements allow for exceptions.


Generic reference

Generic reference is about types (or classes), not individuals or sets.

Types are accessed metonymically via instances: INSTANCE FOR TYPE.

Typically, the type metonymically stands for a prototypical subtype: TYPE FOR PROTOTYPICAL SUBTYPE.

Types of individuative and generic reference


Form

Indefinite singular

Individuative reference

A lion escaped.

Generic reference

A lion has a tufted tail.

Indefinite plural Lions are roaring near by. Lions have tufted tails.

Definite singular The lion came up to us. The lion has a tufted tail.

Definite plural The lions are hungry. The Italians love pasta.


Individuative and generic reference

Challenges for cognitive linguistics:

a. Relationship between individuative and generic reference: Are the same four forms of reference polysemous or homonymous?

b. Relationship between the four forms of genericness: Do they express the same meaning or different meanings?

Exclusiveness of indefinite reference; inclusiveness of definite reference


Form

Indefinite singular:


A lion escaped.

Generic reference


Indefinite plural: Lions are roaring near by. Lions have tufted tails.

Definite singular: The lion came up to us. The lion has a tufted tail.

Definite plural: The lions are hungry. The Italians love pasta.

Exclusive

Inclusive

1. Individuative and generic reference of the indefinite singular a(n)


Form



A lion escaped.

Generic reference





Exclusive

Inclusive


1. Representative generics: a(n)

An alligator has a strong bite. (generic)

Any alligator has a strong bite. (quantifier)

Representative-instance quantifiers (every, any) and representative-instance generics (a/an) profile a single, arbitrary instance of a category as representative for the whole category. (Langacker)

However, the quantifiers every and any refer to the extensions of a full set, while generic reference refers to a type and allows for exception

1. Representative generics:An alligator has a strong bite.


….

an arbitrary instance

representinga generic type

type ‘alligator’

…..

1. Representative generics: Grammatical behavior of representative instances

Coordination (Burton-Roberts 1976)

a. *A beaver and an otter build dams.

b. Beavers and otters build dams.

c. The beaver and the otter build dams.

Representative generics can’t be coordinated because each of the coordinated phrases profiles its own individual event representing its own type.


1. Representative generics: Grammatical behavior of representative instances

Kind predicates (Krifka et al 1995)

a. *An orangutan has died out.

b. Gorillas are on the brink of extinction.

c. The chimpanzee is critically endangered.

Not a single instance, but only a species as a whole can become extinct.



1. Representative generics: Imagining a representative generic

“There is an image in the mind, more or less vague, of a single individual, accompanied by a certain knowledge that what is said about this individual would have been equally true if we had chosen another member of the same class instead. […]

The generic a-form is at times only a masked individual use. The speaker has often one definite case in mind if he veils his speech in the garb of a generic statement.”

(Christophersen 1939)

1. Representative generics: Blending of representative instance

and type


single indefiniteinstance(‘a lion’)

type (‘lion’ )

INSTANCE FOR TYPE

arbitrary instancerepresenting

Input: typeInput: instance

Blend

A lion (has a tufted tail)

prototypical subtype (tufted tail)

of type (‘lion’)


1. Representative generics: Essential vs accidental properties

a. A bird has a beak, wings and feathers and lays eggs.b. ? A bird sings.c. ? A bird is beautiful.

d. A madrigal is polyphonic.e. ?A madrigal is popular. f. Madrigals are popular. g. The madrigal is popular.h. A football hero is popular.

(Krifka et al. 1995)


1. Representative generics: Representative instance used in

definitions (definitions are based on essential attributes)

a. A car is something that you ride in.

b. A card is a flat stiff piece of paper.

c. A carpenter is someone who builds things with wood.

(Sesame Street Dictionary)

11.04.23 Generic reference


definitions

24



definitions


1. Representative generics: What is a – questions (ask for essential

attributes)a. What is a package?

A package is a namespace that organizes a set of related classes and interfaces.

b. What is a herbivore?

A herbivore is an animal that gets its energy from eating plants, and only plants.

c. What is a galaxy?

A galaxy is made of billions of stars, dust, and gas all held together by gravity.

1. Representative generics: Non-human and human generic

referents


Form


Non-human subjects

A lion likes meat.

Human subjects

?An Italian likes pasta.

Indefinite plural: Lions like meat. Italians like pasta.

Definite singular: The lion likes meat. ?The Italian likes pasta.

Definite plural: ?The lions like meat. The Italians like pasta.


1. Representative generics: Humans as representative instances

a. ??An Italian is a football fan.

b. An Italian - someone of or pertaining to Italy or its people; native to or produced in Italy. (OED)

c. The every day life expectancy for an Italian is 79,54 years. (statistical average)

d. An Englishman drinks tea, even under water. (national stereotype)

e. A linguist is one who engages in the study of language. (the essence of a linguist)

1. Representative generics: Summary

The indefinite singular referent profiles the instance.

The instance excludes other elements.

The instance evokes its type (INSTANCE FOR TYPE).

The notions of a single indefinite instance and type are blended, giving rise to emergent meanings: arbitrariness and representativeness of instance.

The representative generic applies to referents that are defined by essential attributes shared by all its members.

The representative generic evokes a prototypical subtype (TYPE

FOR SUBTYPE), i.e. it tolerates exceptions.


2. Individuative and generic reference of the indefinite (bare) plural


Form



A lion escaped.

Generic reference





Exclusive

Inclusive

2. Proportional generics: Cline in quantities invoked by the bare

plural ranging from ‘all’ to ‘a few’

Quantities evoked by bare plural:

a. Horses are mammals. = all (type)

b. Dodos eat peanuts. = most

c. Finns always do well in ski-jumping competitions. = a few


2. Proportional generics: Coordination and anaphora with bare

pluralsCoordination of generic and individuative bare plurals:

a. Hedgehogs are shy creatures but often visit my garden.

b. *A hedgehog is a shy creature but often visits my garden.

c. *The hedgehog is a shy creature but often visits my garden.

(Lyons 1999)

Individuative bare plural as antecedent of generic pronoun:

Bill trapped eagles last night even though he knows full well that they are on the verge of extinction.

(Carlson 1980)


2. Proportional generics: Blending of proportional instance and

type


plural indefiniteinstance

(‘hedgehogs’)

type (‘hedgehog’)

INSTANCE FOR TYPE

salient proportion of type‘s reference mass


Blend

Hedgehogs (are shy creatures)

= subtype of type (‘most hedgehogs’)

2. Proportional generics: Generalizations based on other salient

aspects

a. Mammals give birth to live young. (= 50%)

b. Mosquitoes carry plasmodia. (small, but salient proportion)

c. Rats are bothersome to most people. (never seen a rat)

d. Italians make fine furniture. (salient proportion with respect to cabinet-makers world-wide)


2. Proportional generics: Summary

The indefinite plural referent profiles the instance.

The instance represents a proportion of a set, thus excluding other elements of the set.


The set is the reference mass of the type.

The notions of proportion and type are blended, giving rise to the emergent notion of salience of the proportion.

The proportion (of the reference mass) represents the subtype (of the type).

The proportional generic is the preferred generic construal for generalizations based on quantitative and statistical information.


3. Individuative and generic reference of the definite singular the


Form



A lion escaped.

Generic reference





Exclusive

Inclusive

3. Kind generics: Well-established kinds

a. The Coke bottle has a narrow neck.

b. ??The green bottle has a narrow neck. (Krifka et al. 1995)


3. Kind generics: Imagining a kind generic

We have “a more or less vague image of one member of the species in question. […] this is somehow taken as representing the whole species.”

(Jespersen 1949)

The lion is the king of beasts.

“We imagine for a moment that there is only one lion, which is in itself the whole species. […] the species is thought of as a unit appearing in a shape of one of its members.”

(Christophersen 1939)


3. Kind generics: Blending of prototypical instance and

type


prototypicalinstance

(prototypical lion)

definitetype

(‘lion’)

INSTANCE FOR TYPE

subtype of type (‘lion’)


Blend

The lion (has a bushy mane)

seen as protypical instance

3. Kind generics: Eventive predicates with a species?

a. The tiger roams the jungle. (no exception)

a’ The tiger roams the jungle, #but there are some that don’t.

b. The panda eats bamboo leaves.

c. The albatross lays one egg: it is white, with a few spots, and is about four inches long. (the kind is sex-neutral)

c’ The albatross lays one egg, ?except for the male.


3. Kind generics:Constraints within taxonomic

hierarchies

a. ??The bird builds a nest. (basic level)

b. The long-tailed tailor bird builds its nest out of leaves.

(the best kinds are at the subordinate level)

c. ??The tree has a trunk and branches.

d. The cherry tree has a brown trunk, green leaves, and red cherries.


3. Kind generics: Constraints within the Great Chain of Beings (Lakoff & Turner 1989)

Humans: a. ?The girl plays with dolls.

b. The customer is always right.

Animals: a. The dog is an extremely social animal.

b. The tiger hunts by night.

Plants: a. ?The rose has thorns.

b. The tea rose is native to China.

Complex objects: a. ?The table has a flat top and legs.

b. The computer has changed our lives.

Natural physical things: a. *The mountain is high.

b. The sea is a complex ecosystem.


3. Kind generics: Summary

The definite singular referent profiles the type.

A type includes the totality of its members.

The type is a well-established kind.

The type is imagined as a prototypical instance (INSTANCE FOR

TYPE).

The notions of prototypical instance and type are blended, giving rise to the emergent meaning of a prototypical subtype (TYPE

FOR SUBTYPE).

The kind generic is the preferred generic construal for “theorizing”.


4. Individuative and generic reference of the definite plural the


Form



A lion escaped.

Generic reference





Exclusive

Inclusive

4. Delimited genericsvs. proportional generics

Proportional generic (bare plural):

Italians love pasta.

‘anyone who either is, has been, or will be an Italian loves pasta’

Delimited generic (definite plural):

The Italians love pasta.

‘those individuals of Italian parentage who currently inhabit Italy love pasta’

The definite plural invokes a pragmatically delimited set within a domain. (Hawkins 1978)


4. Delimited generic:Blending of delimited instance and

type


definite pluralinstance

(‘the Italians)

type (‘Italian’)

INSTANCE FOR TYPE

delimited set


Blend

The Italians (love pasta)

= subtype of type (‘Italians of Italy’)

4a. Property generics:A subtype of delimited generics

PROPERTY FOR A THING THAT HAS THE PROPRTY

a. The young are taking over now.

domain: ‘age’

b. The hungry suffer most.

domain: ‘(crave for) food’

c. The majority of the unemployed are semi-skilled or unskilled.

domain: ‘(lack of) employment’

d. *The thirsty suffer; *The happy live long; *The eager come first, etc.


Delimited generics vs. proportional generics

Americans are tolerant. (= majority of Americans)

sounds more appropriate than

The Americans are tolerant. (= Americans living in America)

The Americans are our best friends whether we like it or not.

sounds more appropriate than

Americans are our best friends whether we like it or not.


4. Delimited generics:Non-human and human generics


Form


Non-human subjects

A lion likes meet.

Human subjects

?An Italian likes pasta.

Indefinite plural: Lions like meet. Italians like pasta.

Definite singular: The lion likes meet. ?The Italian likes pasta.

Definite plural: ?The lions like meet. The Italians like pasta.

4. Delimited generics: Summary

The definite plural referent profiles the instance.

The instance includes the totality of members of a pragmatically delimited set in some domain.


The type is a well-established kind.

The notions of instance and type are blended, giving rise to the emergent meaning of the delimited set as a subtype (TYPE FOR

SUBTYPE).

The delimited generic is the preferred generic construal for describing well-established human groupings.


Conclusions

The particular meanings of the four types of generic reference are to a large extent motivated by the following four factors:

i. the notions of inclusiveness and exclusiveness

ii. the metonymy INSTANCE FOR TYPE

iii. the metonymy TYPE FOR SUBTYPE

iv. the conceptual blending of instance and type


Types of generic reference in English

Generic type Generic form InclusivenessExclusivenes

Generic meaning

1. Representative generic

Indef. Singular Exclusive Arbitrary instance representing its type

2. Proportional generic

Indef. Plural Exclusive Salient proportion of the type’s reference mass

3. Kind generic Def. Singular Inclusive Prototype of well-established kind

4. Delimited generic

Def. Plural Inclusive Delimited set within a domain (mainly human groupings)


1. A lion likes meat.2. Lions like meat.3. The lion likes meat.4. The Italians like pasta.


References

Burton-Roberts, Noel. 1976. On the generic indefinite article. Language 52: 427–448.

Carlson, Gregory N. 1980. Reference to Kinds in English. New York: Garland.

Chesterman, Andrew. 1991. On Definiteness: A Study with Special Reference to English and Finnish. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Christophersen, Paul. 1939. The Articles: A Study of Their Theory and Use in English. Copenhagen: Munksgaard.

Coulson, Seana & Todd Oakley. 2003. Metonymy and conceptual blending. In K.-U. Panther & L. L. Thornburg, eds., Metonymy and Pragmatic Inferencing [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 113], 51–79. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins.

Fauconnier, Gilles & Mark Turner. 2002. The Way We Think: Conceptual Blending and the Mind’s Hidden Complexities. New York: Basic Books.

Hawkins, John A. 1978. Definiteness and Indefiniteness: A Study in Reference and Grammaticality Prediction. London: Croom Helm.

Jespersen, Otto. 1949. A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles. Part VII: Syntax. London: Allen and Unwin.

Krifka, Manfred et al. 1995. Genericity: An introduction. In G. N. Carlson & F. J. Pelletier, eds., The Generic Book, 1–124. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

References

Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, Fire and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Lakoff, George & Mark Turner. 1989. More than Cool Reason: A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Langacker, Ronald W. 1991. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. II: Descriptive Application. Stanford CA: Stanford University Press.

——— 1995. A constraint in progressive generics. In A. E. Goldberg, ed., Conceptual Structure, Discourse and Language, 289–302. Stanford: CSLI Publications.

Lyons, Christopher. 1999. Definiteness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Perlmutter, David M. 1970. On the article in English. In M. Bierwisch & R. Heidolph, eds., Progress in Linguistics, 233–248. The Hague: Mouton.

Quirk, Randolph et al. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longmans.

Radden, Günter & René Dirven. 2007. Cognitive English Grammar. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins.

——— & Zoltán Kövecses. 1999. Towards a theory of metonymy. In K.-U. Panther & G. Radden, eds., Metonymy in Language and Thought [Human Cognitive Processing 4], 17–59. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins.

Taylor, John. 2002. Cognitive Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.


ceg chapter 4 generic reference

Technology