Do All Eagles Fly High? The Generic Overgeneralization Effect: The Impact of Fillers in Truth Value Judgment Tasks


The generic overgeneralization effect is an attested tendency to accept false universal generalizations such as “all eagles fly” or “all snakes lay eggs” as true. In this paper, we discuss the generic overgeneralization effect demonstrated by Polish adult speakers. We asked 313 native speakers of Polish to evaluate universal quantified generalizations such as “all eagles fly” or “all snakes lay eggs” as true or false. The control group of 107 respondents provided data on the acceptance rates of the corresponding generic generalizations such as “eagles fly” or “snakes lay eggs”. By determining the impact of test fillers on the participants’ acceptance rates, the study aimed to identify the scope of the generic overgeneralization effect. We manipulated four conditions: the universal negative, positive, neutral, and generic control conditions. The results showed significant differences between the first two conditions, but neither the negative nor the positive condition differed from the neutral one. The overall acceptance rates of universal statements were 63% for the negative condition, 49% for the positive condition, 55% for the neutral condition, and 90% for the control group. Overall, the participants accepted universal quantified statements at high rates even when they were prompted to reject them. The results may be interpreted as another piece of evidence in support of the generic overgeneralization effect.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • Behrens, L. (2005). Genericity from a cross-linguistic perspective. Linguistics, 43(2), 275–344.

  • Carlson, G. N., & Pelletier, F. J. (Eds.). (1995). The generic book. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.

  • Gasz, A. (2013). Zarys gramatyki uogólnień na materiale aforyzmów (ujęcie polskorosyjskie). Katowice, Poland: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Śląskiego.

  • Gelman, S. A. (2003). The essential child. Origins of essentialims in everyday thought. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.

  • Gelman, S. A. (2004). Learning words for kinds: Generic noun phrases in acquisition. In D. G. Hall & S. R. Waxman (Eds.), Weaving a lexicon (pp. 445–484). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

  • Gelman, S. A., Goetz, P. J., Sarnecka, B. W., & Flukes, J. (2008). Generic language in parent-child conversations. Language Learning and Development.

  • Grzegorczykowa, R. (2001). Wprowadzenie do semantyki językoznawczej. Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.

  • Hollander, M. A., Gelman, S. A., & Star, J. (2002). Children’s interpretation of generic noun phrases. Developmental Psychology, 38(6), 883–894.–1649.38.6.883

  • Kahneman, D. (2003). Maps of bounded rationality: Psychology for behavioral economics. American Economic Review, 93(5), 1449–1475.

  • Karczewski, D. (2016). Generyczność w języku i w myśleniu. Studium kognitywne. Kraków, Poland: Universitas.

  • Karczewski, D., & Wajda, E. (2015). Perceptions of different syntactic forms of generics: An experimental study. Białostockie Archiwum Językowe, 15, 233–245.

  • Karczewski, D., Wajda, E., & Poniat, R. (forthcoming). Do all storks fly to Africa? Universal statements and the generic overgeneralization effect. Lingua.

  • Khemlani, S., Leslie, S., Glucksberg, S., & Fernandez, P. R. (2007). Do ducks lay eggs? How people interpret generic assertions. Proceedings of the 29th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, 395–401.

  • Kiklewicz, A. (2004). Podstawy składni funkcjonalnej. Olsztyn, Poland: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Warmińsko-Mazurskiego.

  • Krifka, M., Pelletier, F. J., Carlson, G. N., ter Meulen, A., Link, G., & Chierchia, G. (1995). Genericity: An introduction. In G. N. Carlson & F. J. Pelletier (Eds.), The generic book. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.

  • Lazaridou-Chatzigoga, D. (2019). Genericity. In C. Cummins & N. Katsos (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of experimental semantics and pragmatics (pp. 156–177). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Lazaridou-Chatzigoga, D., & Stockall, L. (2013). Genericity, exceptions and domain restriction: experimental evidence from comparison with universals. In E. Chemla, V. Homer, & G. Winterstein (Eds.), Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 17 (pp. 325–342). Paris:École Normale Supérieure.

  • Lazaridou-Chatzigoga, D., Stockall, L., & Katsos, N. (2017). A new look at the ‘Generic Overgeneralisation’ effect. Inquiry, 3923 (February), 1–27.

  • Lazaridou-Chatzigoga, D., Stockall, L., & Katsos, N. (2019). Contextualising generic and universal generalisations: Quantifier domain restriction and the generic overgeneralisation effect. Journal of Semantics, (October), 617–664.

  • Leslie, S.-J. (2007). Generics and the structure of the mind. Philosophical Perspectives, 21(1), 375–403. Retrieved from

  • Leslie, S.-J. (2008). Generics: Cognition and acquisition. Philosophical Review, 117(1), 1–47.

  • Leslie, S.-J. (2012). Generics articulate default generalizations. Recherches Linguistiques de Vincennes, 41, 25–44.

  • Leslie, S.-J., Khemlani, S., & Glucksberg, S. (2011). Do all ducks lay eggs? The generic overgeneralization effect. Journal of Memory and Language.

  • Mari, A., Beyssade, C., & del Prete, F. (Eds.). (2013). Genericity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Nickel, B. (2008). Generics and the ways of normality. Linguistics and Philosophy, 31(6), 629–648.

  • Pelletier, F. J., & Asher, N. (1997). Generics and defaults. In J. van Benthem & A. ter Meulen (Eds.), Handbook of logic and language (pp. 1125–1179). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

  • Prasada, S., Khemlani, S., Leslie, S. J., & Glucksberg, S. (2013). Conceptual distinctions amongst generics. Cognition.

  • Smólska, J., & Rusiecki, J. (1980). The generic noun phrase in English and Polish. Papers and Studies in Contrastive Linguistics, 1–10.

  • Stanley, J., & Szabó, Z. G. (2000). On quantifier domain restriction. Mind and Language, 15 (June), 219–261.


Journal + Issues