The Presuppositions of Soft Triggers aren't Presuppositions

Romoli, Jacopo

doi:10.3765/salt.v0i0.2619

Cited by 7 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In her system, one would have to add a constraint on alternative construction so that the alternative of soft triggers and the ones of other scalar terms do not mix. In the present account, however, they are allowed and expected to combine and, in fact, this combination is at the basis of the account of some puzzles regarding the interaction between soft triggers embedding other scalar terms (see Romoli 2011and Chemla 2010. 25 It is easy to see that (46b) and (46c) do not entail (45) as they do not give rise to any inference.…”

Section: (Ii)mentioning

confidence: 91%

“…Building on Romoli 2011, I develop Chemla's (2009a scalar approach, however not applied to presuppositions in general, but only to soft presuppositions, along the lines of Abusch's (2010). The contribution of the proposal is twofold.…”

Section: (I)mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This is because theories of presuppositions that are based on alternatives do not automatically solve the triggering problem, but rather reframe it so as to question the origin of the alternatives instead: where the alternatives come from and why those alternatives and not others (see Schlenker 2010 for discussion). In this paper, I will not try to answer this question, see Romoli (2011Romoli ( , 2012 for an attempt to connect this to Abrusán's (2011b) approach to the triggering problem.…”

Section: Chemla (2009a): the Projection Of Presuppositions As A Scalamentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The Presuppositions of Soft Triggers are Obligatory Scalar Implicatures

Romoli

2014

Journal of Semantics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Presupposition triggers can be divided in two groups, 'soft' and 'hard,' based on whether the presuppositions they give rise to are easily defeasible and whether they project uniformly in quantificational sentences (Abusch 2002, 2010, Charlow 2009). Recently, two ideas have been put forward in the literature in connection to this problem. First, soft triggers should be thought of as non-presuppositional items associated with lexical alternatives (Abusch 2002, 2010). Second, the projection behavior of presuppositions can be accounted for by a theory based on scalar implicatures (Chemla 2009a, Chemla 2010). In this paper, building on these two ideas, I propose a scalar approach to the presuppositions of soft triggers. The contribution of the proposal is twofold. First, I propose a theory of soft presuppositions as scalar implicatures that provides an account of their behaviour in quantificational sentences that makes more accurate predictions than Chemla's (2009a), Chemla's (2010) and Abusch's (2010) proposals and other non-alternative-based theories that I am aware of. Second, I develop an account of the differences between soft and hard presuppositions, on the one hand, and the similarities between soft presuppositions and scalar implicatures, on the other. Finally, the proposed approach also reduces the pattern of presupposition suspension to independent principles needed in the theory of scalar implicatures.

show abstract

Section: (Ii)mentioning

confidence: 91%

Section: (I)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Chemla (2009a): the Projection Of Presuppositions As A Scalamentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Presuppositions of Soft Triggers are Obligatory Scalar Implicatures

Romoli

2014

Journal of Semantics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, negation is given a lexical entry as in  (4), which recovers the pattern we described above: negation is active only at the level of the assertion. In recent years, this semantic approach has been criticised 1 and alternative pragmatic models of presupposition projection have been developed to offer new formal solutions (of particular importance for our purposes are Simons, 2004, Schlenker, 2008, Chemla, 2008a Abusch, 2010, Romoli, 2011; see Schlenker, 2010 for an overview). In these views, negation is given a more traditional, non-dynamic lexical entry, i.e., a lexical entry which does not distinguish between presuppositional and non-presuppositional aspects of the meaning of the constituent it applies to:…”

Section: Linguistic Accounts Of Presupposition Projectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Processing presuppositions: Dynamic semantics vs pragmatic enrichment

Chemla

Bott

2013

Language and Cognitive Processes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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).

show abstract

“…Em uma série de trabalhos -cf. Romoli (2011Romoli ( , 2012Romoli ( , 2015 -, o autor passou a defender a ideia de que, em enunciados negativos e condicionais, pressuposições são implicaturas de quantidade escalares obrigatórias. Seu argumento, em linhas gerais, é o de que os gatilhos pressuposicionais, assim como os itens escalares responsáveis pela geração de implicatura de quantidade escalares, ativam escalas de quantidade informacional.…”

Section: Pressuposições Em Perspectivas Mais Recentesunclassified

O estudo da aquisição de inferências pragmáticas como elemento na escolha entre modelos teóricos em disputa

Goldnadel

2017

Let. Hoje (Online)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Este artigo está licenciado sob forma de uma licença Creative Commons Atribuição 4.0 Internacional, que permite uso irrestrito, distribuição e reprodução em qualquer meio, desde que a publicação original seja corretamente citada. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.pt_BR O estudo da aquisição de inferências pragmáticas como elemento na escolha entre modelos teóricos em disputa Resumo: Fenômeno de comportamento ambivalente, pressuposição tem desafiado algumas gerações de linguistas em relação a dois problemas complementares: o problema da projeção de pressuposições e o problema da origem das pressuposições. Embora o problema descritivo da projeção tenha recebido maior atenção, não se pode lidar com ele sem assumir algum posicionamento quanto ao problema explanatório, relativo à origem das inferências consideradas pressuposicionais. O desacordo que se observa quanto à descrição da projeção de pressuposições contrasta, no entanto, com um relativo consenso, historicamente construído, sobre a natureza das pressuposições. Segundo esse consenso, pressuposição é fenômeno de natureza convencional, sujeito, apenas em sua projeção, a injunções de ordem conversacional. Mais recentemente, esse consenso tem sido abalado por uma nova onda de trabalhos, que, de diversos modos, passaram a defender a ideia de que pressuposição é fenômeno de natureza fundamentalmente conversacional. Entre essas propostas, uma que merece atenção pela plausibilidade é a que identifica pressuposição com implicatura de quantidade escalar. As duas formas de encarar a origem de pressuposições, no entanto, permitem realizar predições distintas quanto ao seu processamento. Interessados na comprovação de uma das duas hipóteses, estudos experimentais foram conduzidos recentemente com a finalidade de avaliar o modo como pressuposições e implicaturas escalares são processadas. Os resultados desses estudos têm sido importante elemento no debate sobre o problema explanatório da origem de pressuposições. Este artigo revisita alguns experimentos que avaliam o modo como ocorre o processamento de implicaturas escalares e pressuposições e procura avaliar a importância, no quadro mais geral desse debate, de trabalhos que investiguem o modo como sujeitos em fase de aquisição processam inferências pragmáticas. Mostra, nesse percurso, que as evidências obtidas podem ser vistas como elementos de apoio a certos modelos ou, alternativamente, como pistas para o aprimoramento das suposições dos modelos que, inicialmente, parecem problematizar. Palavras-chave: Pressuposição; Implicatura de quantidade escalar; Processamento de inferências pragmáticas; Aquisição de inferências pragmáticasAbstract: Phenomenon known for its ambivalent behavior, presupposition has been challenging some generations of linguists regarding two complementary problems: the presupposition projection problem and the problem about the source of presuppositions. Although the descriptive problem has received more attention, it is impossible to cope with it without assuming some position regardi...

show abstract

The Presuppositions of Soft Triggers aren't Presuppositions

Cited by 7 publications

References 6 publications

The Presuppositions of Soft Triggers are Obligatory Scalar Implicatures

The Presuppositions of Soft Triggers are Obligatory Scalar Implicatures

Processing presuppositions: Dynamic semantics vs pragmatic enrichment

O estudo da aquisição de inferências pragmáticas como elemento na escolha entre modelos teóricos em disputa

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About