Lexical Alternatives as a Source of Pragmatic Presuppositions

Abusch, Dorit

doi:10.3765/salt.v12i0.2867

Cited by 219 publications

(46 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It has been observed in the presupposition literature going back to Karttunen (1971), that cognitive and emotive factives differ in several regards with respect to the status of the factive presupposition concerning the embedded content (see for instance Simons 2001, Abusch 2002, Chemla 2009, Romoli 2015, Abrusán 2016, and Djärv, Zehr & Schwarz 2017. Hence, the present study included both cognitive and emotive factive predicates.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Prosodic Effects on Factive Presupposition Projection

Djärv

Bacovcin

2017

SALT

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper reports a follow-up to Tonhauser (2016) investigating the interaction between prosodically-mediated pragmatics and factive presupposition projection. We replicate Tonhauser’s finding that prosody does have an impact on factive presupposition projection (stress on material in the embedded clause decrease the strength of projection). However, we found that this difference was substantially smaller than the difference between factive and non-factive predicates. We also found that stress placement impacted projection judgments for non-factive clauses as well. We outline a hypothesis for a general pragmatic mechanism for deriving non-assertive inferences from prosody and discuss how that mechanism interacts with the projection of factive presuppositions.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Prosodic Effects on Factive Presupposition Projection

Djärv

Bacovcin

2017

SALT

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We leave open at this point whether the generalization that neg-raising verbs are anti-rogative can also be derived on these other accounts. 13 Gajewski (2007) emphasizes that the excluded middle presupposition of neg-raising predicates, because of its defeasibility, should be regarded as a soft presupposition in the sense of Abusch (2002Abusch ( , 2010. However, his actual account of their defeasibility is in terms of local accommodation and does not seem to explicitly rely on the assumption that they are soft presuppositions in Abusch's sense.…”

Section: A Generalized Em Presuppositionmentioning

confidence: 99%

What's wrong with believing whether

Theiler

Roelofsen

Aloni

2017

SALT

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Truckenbrodt (2013) proposes that they presuppose that there is a true answer. Abusch (2002) makes a parallel suggestion for sets of focus alternatives. The difference to (16) is that (16) is modalized and about both true and false answers.…”

Section: Temporal Continuative Noch/stillmentioning

confidence: 99%