Homogeneity in (non)monotonic contexts

Abstract

This paper examines three prominent approaches to homogeneity: the implicature approach (Magri, 2014; Bar-Lev, 2021), the cognitive bias approach (Sbardolini, 2023) and the truth-value gap approach (Schwarzschild, 1996; Löbner, 2000; Gajewski, 2005; Križ, 2015; Križ and Spector, 2021; Guerrini and Wehbe, 2024). While all three frameworks account for homogeneity in simple, non-quantificational sentences, their predictions diverge in certain quantificational environments. To test these predictions, we investigated the interpretation of plural definites in both positive and negative sentences across monotonic and non-monotonic environments. Our results favor a particular version of the truth-value gap approach, posing challenges for both the implicature and cognitive bias approaches. We explore alternative analytical options for these approaches to address these challenges, identify open questions, and evaluate the prospects of a unified analysis of homogeneity alongside related phenomena.