Generic , kind , and subkind interpretations : Reflections on Brugger ( 1993 )

Generic and kind interpretations of nominals are often discussed separately in the literature if they are distinguished at all. One early exception to this is the little cited Brugger (1993), which proposes that nominal generalities, that is nominals with general interpretations, appear to access two distinct strategies, either reference to kinds or generic quantification. In this paper, I reflect back on Brugger (1993) and argue that, while I differ from his particular analysis, his explicit distinction and discussion of the relationship between kind reference and generic quantification offered an important starting point for a clearer understanding of the linguistic capacities that underwrite our ability to generalize beyond object reference. In this paper, I first review some of the relevant distinctions made in Brugger (1993). Following an observation of Brugger’s concerning subkind interpretations, I propose that a subkind analysis opens the way for a compositional approach to the plural in English bare plurals. I then extend the idea of a subkinds analysis to a wider variety of nominal generalities, using the quantificational machinery that is deployed in the object domain and focusing on both existential and generic quantification. This approach naturally captures the interpretative possibilities that are open to bare plurals and extends to other types of nominals like bare numerals and indefinites. A final summary of the interpretative strategies in the paper is given in the conclusion.