176 Gréte Dalmi
In (42), by contrast, both the 3sg generic inclusive dative beneficiary and the null pos-
sessor are in the scope of GN, therefore no WCO-effect is observed:
no wco-effect
(42) [SAPP GN [TOPPAz ember-nekGN [QPmindig ad-0
the man-dat always give-pres 3 sg
ajándék-ot az [DP proGN any-ja] [DP tGN]]].
present-acc the (the man.nom) mother-poss 3 sg
‘One’s mother always gives a present to one.’
Moltmann (2012) takes GN to be a complex operator consisting of a universal quanti-
fier that ranges over possible worlds and is restricted by an accessibility relation R from
the actual world to “normal” worlds, plus a universal quantifier ranging over individu-
als and restricted by a normality condition N and a contextual relevance condition C:
(43) ∀w ∀x (wRw 0 & x ∈ D(w) & N(w)(x) & C(w)(x) → P(w)(x))
This means that generic inclusive one is a context-dependent, genericity-inducing item
whose interpretation involves the interlocutors. This is a property that generic inclu-
sive one shares with PROGN. Before I turn to this issue, however, it seems appropri-
ate to discuss some interpretive differences between generic inclusive one vs. generic
exclusive people, given that the generic inclusive vs. generic exclusive interpretations of
Italian si and Polish się often overlap (see Cinque 1988; Chierchia 1995, D’Alessandro
2002 , 2007 and Krzek 2011, 2012 ).2.1 Some interpretive differences between generic inclusive ONE and
generic exclusive PEOPLE
Moltmann (2010) offers a simulation-theoretic account of generic inclusive one, in
which one expresses generalized, detached self-reference. It is frequently found in the
environment of non-veridical (deontic, epistemic, evaluative, attitudinal, conditional,
interrogative and negative) operators (see Giannakidou 2000). The common property
shared by non-veridical operators and generic inclusive one is that they add an epis-
temic modal base to the proposition (Kratzer 1991).
The (attitudinal) epistemic modal base added by generic inclusive one is that of
generalized self-detached simulation, whereby the speaker “identifies himself with each
one of a collection of individuals” (Moltmann 2012: 440). In this respect it differs cru-
cially from 3pl generic exclusive people. In sentences with a 3sg generic inclusive sub-
ject the speaker’s identification with someone else is based on first person experience
or direct inference. Sentences with a 3pl generic exclusive subject are based on third
person observation, induction or derived (indirect) first person inference: