Prosodic Effects on Factive Presupposition Projection

Djärv, Kajsa; Bacovcin, Hezekiah Akiva

doi:10.3765/salt.v27i0.4134

Cited by 44 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The mean pitch for stop was even higher, but so was the mean pitch for return (and to a lesser extent the mean pitch of also) which, however, yielded fewer visible picture than both back and again. Therefore, pitch alone clearly cannot explain our observations, but it could account for some variation in our data (see footnote 17), in line with Djärv and Bacovcin (2017), who conducted an experiment as a response to Tonhauser et al (2013) and argued that prosody is a real but a small factor influencing the status of presuppositions.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 61%

Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 22, 2

Sauerland¹,

Solt²

2018

Zaspil

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 61%

Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 22, 2

Sauerland¹,

Solt²

2018

Zaspil

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Beaver (2010), for example, pointed out the CC of discover in (6) seems not to project when a constituent within the complement (e.g., plagiarized in (6)) is narrowly focused; when narrow focus is outside of the complement (e.g., when discovers is focused), the sentence receives a projective reading with respect to the CC. Later experimental work confirmed the intuition that prosody influences the projection of factive CCs (Cummins & Rohde 2015;Tonhauser 2016;Djärv & Bacovcin 2017).…”

mentioning

confidence: 67%

The social component of the projection behavior of clausal complement contents

Mahler

2020

Proc Ling Soc Amer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Some accounts of presupposition projection predict that content's consistency with the Common Ground influences whether it projects (e.g., Heim 1983, Gazdar 1979a,b). I conducted an experiment to test whether Common Ground information about the speaker's social identity influences projection of clausal complement contents (CCs). Participants rated the projection of CCs conveying liberal or conservative political positions when the speaker was either Democrat- or Republican-affiliated. As expected, CCs were more projective when they conveyed political positions consistent with the speaker's political affiliation: liberal CCs were more projective with Democrat compared to Republican speakers, and conservative CCs were more projective with Republican compared to Democrat speakers. In addition, CCs associated with factive predicates (e.g., know) were more projective than those associated with non-factive predicates (e.g., believe). These findings suggest that social meaning influences projective meaning and that social meaning is constrained by semantic meaning, in line with previous research on the relation between other levels of linguistic structure/perception and social information.

show abstract

“…Note, however, that other work with parallel tasks is more consistent with a traditional categorical distinction between triggers and non-triggers, while allowing for some pragmatic variation in projection strength; see in particularDjärv and Bacovcin (2017).16 Cf. a similar move made inMandelkern (2016) in arguing against approaches to the Proviso Problem on which non-conditional inferences are just pragmatic inferences, not semantic presuppositions.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

We’ve discovered that projection across conjunction is asymmetric (and it is!)

Mandelkern¹,

Zehr

Romoli

et al. 2019

Linguist and Philos

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Is the mechanism behind presupposition projection and filtering fundamentally asymmetric or symmetric? This is a foundational question for the theory of presupposition which has been at the centre of attention in recent literature (Schlenker in Theor Linguist 38 (3):287-316, 2008b. https://doi.org/10.1515/THLI.2008.021, Semant Pragmat 2(3):1-78, 2009. https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.2.3; Rothschild in Semant Pragmat 4(3):1-43, 2011/2015. https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.4.3 a.o.). It also bears on broader issues concerning the source of asymmetries observed in natural language: are these simply rooted in superficial asymmetries of language use (language use happens in time, which we experience as fundamentally asymmetric); or are they, at least in part, directly encoded in linguistic knowledge and representations? In this paper we aim to make progress on these questions by exploring presupposition projection across conjunction, which has traditionally been taken as a central piece of evidence that presupposition filtering is asymmetric in general. As a number of authors have recently pointed out, however, the evidence which has typically been used to support this conclusion is muddied by independent issues concerning redundancy; additional concerns have to do with the possibility of local accommodation. We report on a series of experiments, building on previous work by Chemla and Schlenker (Nat Lang Semant 20(2):177-226, 2012. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-012-9080-7) and Schwarz (in: Schwarz (ed) Experimental perspectives on presuppositions, Springer, Cham, 2015), using inference and acceptability tasks, which aim to control for both of these potential M. Mandelkern et al. confounds. In our results, we find strong evidence for left-to-right filtering across conjunctions, but no evidence for right-to-left filtering-even when right-to-left filtering would, if available, rescue an otherwise unacceptable sentence. These results suggest that presupposition filtering across conjunction is asymmetric, contra suggestions in the recent literature (Schlenker in Theor Linguist 34(3):157-212, 2008a. https://doi. org/10.1515/THLI.2008.013, 2009, and pave the way for the investigation of further questions about the nature of this asymmetry and presupposition projection more generally. Our results also have broader implications for the study of presupposition: we find important differences in the verdicts of acceptability versus inference tasks in testing for projected content, which has both methodological ramifications for the question of how to distinguish presupposed content, and theoretical repercussions for understanding the nature of projection and presuppositions more generally.

show abstract

Prosodic Effects on Factive Presupposition Projection

Cited by 44 publications

References 15 publications

Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 22, 2

Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 22, 2

The social component of the projection behavior of clausal complement contents

We’ve discovered that projection across conjunction is asymmetric (and it is!)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About