Why does this matter? Because generics aren’t just about birds or colors — they’re also at the core of how people express stereotypes about social groups. Understanding how they work also gives us deeper insight into how people share information about others.

Thanks @clpskuleuven.bsky.social! (5/5)

These are two different views on the mechanism behind our interpretation of generic sentences. In our paper, we argue that the universal meaning view is correct.

Generic sentences like “Ravens are black” express (rather than imply) strong, universal-like generalizations. (4/5)

Here is a second 'pragmatic implication view':

The sentence "Ravens are black" actually only says that 𝘴𝘰𝘮𝘦 normal ravens are black — but you interpret my stating this sentence as 𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘺𝘪𝘯𝘨 something stronger: namely that all normal ravens are black.

This is the view of Nickel. (3/5)

Here is a first view, call this 'the universal meaning view':

The sentence “Ravens are black” just 𝘮𝘦𝘢𝘯𝘴 that 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘯𝘰𝘳𝘮𝘢𝘭 𝘳𝘢𝘷𝘦𝘯𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘣𝘭𝘢𝘤𝘬.

Based on your understanding of English, you’ve simply decoded the literal meaning of the sentence. (2/5)

For those interested, let me say a bit more about the topic of our paper:

Take a generic sentence like "Ravens are black".

You probably take this to mean something like:

𝘈𝘭𝘭 𝘯𝘰𝘳𝘮𝘢𝘭 𝘳𝘢𝘷𝘦𝘯𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘣𝘭𝘢𝘤𝘬.

That feels intuitive. But 𝐡𝐨𝐰 does that interpretation arise?

There are two views: (1/5)

Some argue that generics (e.g., "ravens are black") express existentially quantified rather than strong generalizations. In their recent paper, @olivierlemeire.bsky.social & CLPS colleagues counter this, defending the traditional view of generics 👇📃 onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.... #philsky