Generic sentences are sometimes characterized as normative or descriptive. Descriptive generics make generalized claims about things: dogs bark, birds fly, doughnuts have holes. Normative generics do something more complicated; they seem to communicate how things should be: boys don't cry, children are seen and not heard, friends don't let friends drive drunk. The latter set of sentences express something like the speaker's endorsement that the predicated terms match up with the kind terms. Sarah-Jane Leslie posits a semantic view of normative generics on which the subject term is polysemous between a normative and a descriptive reading. I argue that this cannot be right, and show how a Gricean implicature view can accommodate everyday normative generics in a way that Leslie's polysemous view cannot. An upshot of my argument is skepticism about drawing semantic conclusions from dual character concepts.

中文翻译：

---

规范泛型：反对语义多义

通用句子有时具有规范性或描述性的特征。描述性泛型对事物做出概括性声明：狗吠，鸟飞，甜甜圈有洞。规范泛型做一些更复杂的事情；他们似乎在沟通事情应该如何：男孩不哭，孩子被看到和不被听到，朋友不要让朋友酒后驾车. 后一组句子表达了说话者对谓语词与种类词相匹配的认可。莎拉-简·莱斯利 (Sarah-Jane Leslie) 提出了规范泛型的语义观点，其中主题术语在规范性阅读和描述性阅读之间具有多义性。我认为这不可能是正确的，并展示了格莱斯蕴涵观点如何以莱斯利的多义词观点所不能的方式适应日常规范性泛型。我的论点的一个结果是对从双重字符概念中得出语义结论持怀疑态度。