Conceptual distinctions amongst generics

Perceptions of different syntactic forms of generics: an experimental study

“…Overall, strik-3 Principled connections are claimed to be formal connections which represent certain properties as aspects of being a given kind of thing. 4 For the sake of clarity in the discussion concerning the two experimental studies conducted by Leslie et al (2009), we shall follow terminology adopted by Prasada et al (2013). It should be noted, however, that in Leslie et al (2009), majority characteristic predications are referred to as principled predications, minority characteristic predications are referred to as characteristic predications while majority statistical predications are referred to as statistical predications.…”

“…Thus, it seems valid to speculate that when we form general judgments, we are not concerned with how many, but we are rather preoccupied with the question of how striking and important the information is. Leslie's hypotheses form the backbone of the conceptually based approach developed by Prasada et al (2013). The conceptually based approach, in contrast to e.g., Langacker's and Radden's approaches, seeks to examine connections between kinds and properties in generics.…”

“…They argue that generics provide recourse to different types of connections between kinds and properties that our conceptual system represents and thereby, according to Prasada et al (2013), they offer a window into our conceptual system. Prasada et al (2013), on the basis of Leslie's earlier classification (2007Leslie's earlier classification ( , 2008, divide generics into five categories: majority characteristic, minority characteristic, majority statistical, striking and quasi-definition. The first type of generalization -majority characteristic -involves generics such as, e.g., Tigers are striped, which express a property that is prevalent among members of the kind.…”

“…The conceptually based approach, in contrast to e.g., Langacker's and Radden's approaches, seeks to examine connections between kinds and properties in generics. According to Prasada et al (2013) there are three types of connections between kinds and properties, namely principled, statistical and causal, which underlie generic generalization. They argue that generics provide recourse to different types of connections between kinds and properties that our conceptual system represents and thereby, according to Prasada et al (2013), they offer a window into our conceptual system.…”

“…According to Prasada et al (2013) there are three types of connections between kinds and properties, namely principled, statistical and causal, which underlie generic generalization. They argue that generics provide recourse to different types of connections between kinds and properties that our conceptual system represents and thereby, according to Prasada et al (2013), they offer a window into our conceptual system. Prasada et al (2013), on the basis of Leslie's earlier classification (2007Leslie's earlier classification ( , 2008, divide generics into five categories: majority characteristic, minority characteristic, majority statistical, striking and quasi-definition.…”