Gustavo Cilleruelo

Generic sentences express generalizations that tolerate exceptions without explicitly communicating information about quantities. Whether generics semantically encode information about quantities implicitly is controversial. This work takes a large-scale distributional approach to the semantic debate. It compares thousands of naturally occurring generics and quantificational sentences using language-model probabilities. It shows that language models recover many semantic facts about quantifiers. It also shows that they recover semantic facts about surface distributional differences between generics and their "quantificational counterparts". Accordingly, and contrary to dominant views in other fields, we formulate an empirical argument to the effect that generics are not quantificational.

Generic sentences express generalisations about the world without explicit quantification. Although generics are central to everyday communication, building a precise semantic framework has proven difficult, in part because speakers use generics to generalise properties with widely different statistical prevalence. In this work, we study the implicit quantification and context-sensitivity of generics by leveraging language models as models of language. We create ConGen, a dataset of 2873 naturally occurring generic and quantified sentences in context, and define p-acceptability, a metric based on surprisal that is sensitive to quantification. Our experiments show generics are more context-sensitive than determiner quantifiers and about 20% of naturally occurring generics we analyze express weak generalisations. We also explore how human biases in stereotypes can be observed in language models.