Processing presuppositions: Dynamic semantics vs pragmatic enrichment

Abstract

One defining and yet puzzling feature of linguistic presuppositions is the way they interact with linguistic operators. For instance, when a presupposition trigger (e.g., realise) occurs under negation (e.g., Zoologists do not realise that elephants are mammals), the sentence is most commonly interpreted with the same global presupposition (elephants are mammals) as if negation was not present. Alternatively, the presupposition may be locally accommodated, i.e., the presupposition may become part of what is negated. In this paper, we develop and test two processing accounts of presupposition projection, the global-first model and the local-first model, inspired by dynamic semantics and pragmatic theories respectively. We tested these predictions using a verification task similar to Bott and Noveck's (2004) test of default models of scalar implicature. Across two experiments, using different materials and instructions, participants were faster to derive the global interpretation than the local interpretation, in contrast to the local-first model. We discuss the results in terms of dynamic semantics vs. pragmatic models of presupposition projection (e.g., Heim, 1983b vs. Schlenker, 2008).

Presupposition projection from the scope of None: Universal, existential, or both?

“…The child data from Experiment 2 suggest that the UNIVERSAL reading arises from the basic projection mechanism, with the EXISTENTIAL reading being derived through some additional mechanism such as domain restriction. Reaction time data from adults reveal a delay associated with the PRESUPPOSI-TIONLESS reading, suggesting that it involves an additional costly mechanism (e.g., local accommodation), in line with previous results in the literature (Chemla & Bott 2013;Romoli & Schwarz 2014). In addition, the child data, combined with previous results from Bill et al (2016), suggest that in the case of negative quantifiers, there may be two routes for arriving at the PRESUPPOSITIONLESS reading.…”

“…One way to interpret this, which speaks to our third research question, is that the observed slow-down is indicative of an additional step that is required in order to access the PRESUPPOSITIONLESS reading. Such an interpretation is in line with previous results in the literature (Chemla & Bott 2013;Romoli & Schwarz 2014), and is compatible with all theories positing an extra mechanism responsible for suspension.…”

“…On the one hand, reaction time data from the adult participants reveal delays for the PRESUPPOSITIONLESS reading, relative to the EXISTENTIAL and UNIVERSAL readings. This finding suggests that PRESUPPOSITIONLESS readings are not basic, but rather involve other processes, consistent with previous findings in the literature (Chemla & Bott 2013;Romoli & Schwarz 2014). On the other hand, children appear to access the PRESUPPOSITIONLESS reading with ease, which is surprising in light of some previous developmental results.…”

“…Second, if both EXISTENTIAL and UNIVERSAL readings are available, we will explore the relationship between them, in particular investigating whether one may be derived from the other. Finally, we will investigate the nature of the PRESUPPOSITIONLESS reading, in particular whether it corresponds to a literal meaning of sentences like (5) or rather involves further processes (Chemla & Bott 2013;Romoli & Schwarz 2014).…”

Processing inferences at the semantics/pragmatics frontier: Disjunctions and free choice

“…More recently, psycholinguists have began to investigate how various sorts of inferences are processed, adding a new kind of data to the debates, and with the ultimate goal of understanding how pragmatic principles might be instantiated in the human language processor. The most extensive investigations have been conducted on a kind of inference that we introduce in Section 1.1, so-called "scalar implicatures" (e.g., Bott & Noveck, 2004;Bott, Bailey & Grodner, 2012;Breheny, Katsos & Williams, 2006;Huang & Snedeker, 2008;Grodner, Klein et al, 2010;Nieuwland, Ditman, Kuperberg, 2010;Tomlinson, Bailey, & Bott, 2013), but work has also been completed on manner implicatures (Bott, Frisson & Murphy, 2008) and presuppositions (Chemla & Bott, 2013). The experiments in this paper investigate another type of implicature, free choice inferences, which arise from disjunctive sentences.…”