This talk compares simple predicates of personal taste (PPTs) such as tasty and beautiful with their complex counterparts (eg tastes good, looks beautiful). I argue that the former differ from the latter along two dimensions. Firstly, simple PPTs are individual-level predicates, whereas complex ones are stage-level. Secondly, covert Experiencer arguments of simple PPTs obligatorily receive a generic interpretation; by contrast, the covert Experiencer of a complex PPT can have a generic, bound variable or referential interpretation. I provide an analysis of these facts based on a novel proposal about the licensing of individual-level predicates (the ‘ILP Licensing Condition’). This condition states that all covert pronominal arguments of an individual-level predicate – and not merely the situation argument - must be bound by the generic operator. This proposal is in the tradition of the analysis of individual-level predicates in Chierchia (1995), but it imposes a stronger constraint on the licensing of ILPs than previously observed. I consider the implications of this view for debates concerning the proper analysis of the individual-level/stage-level distinction. Finally, I show that generic construal of the Experiencer is a necessary condition for so-called ‘faultless disagreement’ with PPTs. This is evidence in favour of treatments of subjective meaning that appeal to genericity, and against relativism about predicates of personal taste.
OSF does not support the use of Internet Explorer. For optimal performance, please switch to another browser.