Conversational Contrast and Conventional Parallel: Topic Implicatures and Additive Presuppositions

Abstract

Additive particles or adverbs like too or again are sometimes obligatory. This does not follow from the meaning commonly ascribed to them. I argue that the text without the additive is incoherent because the context contradicts a contrast implicature stemming from the additive's associate, and that the text with the additive is coherent because the presupposed alternative is added to the associate, so that the implicature does not concern that alternative. I show that this analysis is better than the account offered by Krifka (1999) and that, contra Zeevat (2003), the notion of a presupposition is essential.

Optionality in the Use of Too: The Role of Reduction and Similarity

“…→ G. Romme is Dutch. (Saebø, 2004) If it is not known whether Gianni Romme is Dutch, then (4a) conveys thathe has a different nationality. on the other hand, if it is otherwise known that Gianni Romme is Dutch, then the pressure to use too is high, and (4a)might even appear degraded because of a clash between an inference and worldknowledge.Another case where the use of toois optional is given in (5).…”

Additive Linking in Second Language Discourse: Lexical, Syntactic and Discourse Organizational Choices in Intermediate and Advanced Learners of L2 German with L1 French

“…Recent semantic accounts treat additive particles as presupposition triggers that are obligatory when their presuppositions are satisfi ed (Krifka, 1999;Saebø, 2004;Amsili & Beyssade, 2010;Eckardt & Fränkel, 2012), i.e., when the contextual information they evoke is explicitly spelled out in the preceding context. Obligatory uses are ot en exemplifi ed with stretches of discourse such as [10] (r om Amsili & Beyssade, 2010), where the presupposition of aussi in [10b] that some contextually relevant person other than Marie is sick is explicitly spelled out in [10a].…”

On the discourse function of particles in post-initial position

“…37 Thus, my findings on post-initial auch (which is unaccented) support Reis and Rosengren's findings on unaccented auch in its other positions. 38 It should be noted here that their account is able to capture cases like (35), unlike accounts like Saebø (2003Saebø ( , 2004 which, albeit similar in spirit, do not make reference to the AC/ID division but only consider the AC part of it. On the other hand, my account of postinitial auch is compatible with Saebø's general approach, while suggesting a refinement in terms of two main observations: (i) that auch operates on alternatives made salient by an alternative-evoking expression that need not be contrastive topic, and (ii) that it in addition designates the pre-field element as belonging to the background.…”

“…Concerning the semantics of auch, I will focus in what follows on Saebø (2003Saebø ( , 2004 where an analysis of auch parallel to aber is suggested. Following Krifka (1999), Saebø argues that auch/too associates with the contrastive topic of the auch-sentence and suggests that aber is to be analyzed as the negative counterpart of auch: auch presupposes that the context entails the result of replacing the (contrastive) topic of the sentence by an alternative.…”

“…This is entailed by the preceding sentence which asserts that the harm is limited. Saebø (2004) defines contrastive topic as accented topic and observes that whereas the associate of auch is always the contrastive topic of the auch-sentence, its presupposed alternative need not be accented topic, and it may be even covert.…”