Concept Typicality and the Interpretation of Plural Predicate Conjunction

This chapter studies the interpretations of plural sentences with conjoined predicates, e.g. The boys are sitting and cooking and The boys are waving and smiling. Such sentences are sometimes interpreted intersectively, sometimes non-intersectively (or ‘split’), and sometimes both interpretations appear to be allowed. This is surprising, since the logical structure of these sentences is identical, i.e. they differ only with respect to content words (e.g. sitting, cooking vs. waving, smiling). I propose that the logical interpretation of these sentences is systematically affected by lexical information tied to the complex predicate in the sentences, specifically their so-called typicality effects. With a set of experiments, I show that (a) the acceptability of a sentence in a non-intersective situation can be expressed in terms of a continuum and (b) each acceptability proportion is predicted by the typicality of the two conjoined predicates applying simultaneously. This way, I specify at least one of the relevant pragmatic considerations that determine the interpretation of a plural sentence with conjunctive predicates. More generally, these results stress the importance of conceptual structure of predicates in semantic theories of language.

[1]  Matthew H. Davis,et al.  Mix, a program for pseudorandomization , 2006, Behavior research methods.

[2]  E. Rosch ON THE INTERNAL STRUCTURE OF PERCEPTUAL AND SEMANTIC CATEGORIES1 , 1973 .

[3]  S. Glucksberg,et al.  Do all ducks lay eggs? The generic overgeneralization effect , 2011 .

[4]  James A. Hampton,et al.  Typicality, Graded Membership, and Vagueness , 2007, Cogn. Sci..

[5]  M. Dalrymple,et al.  Reciprocal Expressions and the Concept of Reciprocity , 1998 .

[6]  Caroline Heycock,et al.  Friends and Colleagues: Plurality, Coordination, and the Structure of DP , 2005 .

[7]  Jan Theeuwes,et al.  OpenSesame: An open-source, graphical experiment builder for the social sciences , 2011, Behavior Research Methods.

[8]  James A. Hampton,et al.  Compositionality and Concepts , 2017 .

[9]  Marijn E. Struiksma,et al.  Reciprocal expressions and the Maximal Typicality Hypothesis , 2018 .

[10]  Yoad Winter,et al.  Critical Typicality: Truth Judgements and Compositionality with Plurals and Other Gradable Concepts , 2017 .

[11]  Mats Rooth,et al.  Generalized Conjunction and Type Ambiguity , 2008 .

[12]  Yoad Winter,et al.  Typicality Effects and the Logic of Reciprocity , 2009 .

[13]  E. Rosch,et al.  Family resemblances: Studies in the internal structure of categories , 1975, Cognitive Psychology.

[14]  L. M. Faltz,et al.  Boolean semantics for natural language , 1984 .

[15]  W. Philip Adult and child understanding of simple reciprocal sentences , 2000 .

[16]  Lance J. Rips,et al.  Structure and process in semantic memory: A featural model for semantic decisions. , 1974 .

[17]  Choonkyu Lee Typicality Knowledge and the Interpretation of Adjectives , 2017 .

[18]  Yoad Winter,et al.  Plural Predication and the Strongest Meaning Hypothesis , 2001, J. Semant..