Presuppositions in Spoken Discourse

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Chapter 4 For many of the examples, the semantic information contributed by the linguistic expressions alone was only a weak indication that presuppositional binding was taking place. If the predicative role of the presupposed material and how the binding relationship contributes to the coherence of the discourse are understood, then the only way to arrive at a coherent interpretation is by binding between the presuppositional expressions and the earlier information. This result seems to support Asher & Lascarides’ (1998b) emphasis on the role of pragmatic information in resolving presuppositions, at least for binding examples. Until we have a clearer idea of how to determine when linguistic expressions are referring to the same information, we can use our understanding of how binding would contribute to understanding the rhetorical relationship between utterances in the discourse as collaborating evidence that we are dealing with bound presuppositional information. The ability of the presuppositional expressions to have these extra discourse functions seems to be largely dependent on the type of semantic object that the trigger induces.. The function of anaphors in context differs according to the type of semantic individual they refer to as does the function of presuppositions. Anaphoric expressions that refer to concrete semantic individuals have an identifying function, whether they identify an already given individual, or in the cases of set-relationship anaphors, an individual from a given set. The same goes for presuppositions of concrete semantic individuals. Triggers that presuppose concrete semantic individuals, e.g. a subset of the category identified by Zeevat as the referential anaphoric triggers and represented in the corpus by definite NPs, seem to serve either an identifying function alone or in combination with the addition of more descriptive information. Zeevat (to appear) argues that the use of these triggers only helps to supply referents for predications and to link the descriptive meaning that they are associated with to the right semantic individual in the discourse representation, i.e. “it is by no means clear that the role these referring expressions play in defining the thought expressed by the sentence in which they occur depends much on the content of their presuppositions.” (p. 9, Zeevat, to appear). Concrete individuals are generally in an identity relationship with their antecedents. Their correct resolution can contribute to understanding the discourse structure but this is not their main function in discourse. Whereas triggers that induce presuppositions of abstract objects can display extra functions more easily because the antecedent that they will be binding with is also an abstract object. Because of the lack of individuation of abstract objects, the descriptive content contained in the triggered presupposition can shape or delimit this object more than pronominal anaphoric reference could, or more than concrete anaphoric references can delimit their antecedents. Also, because of the additional descriptive content we can create rhetorical effects by repetitions and other means that are less available with concrete anaphoric reference. For these reasons, I think the type of semantic object that the trigger induces will support these additional functions, and in the case of abstract presuppositions, it supports these extra effects. 96
Anaphors and Bound Presuppositions Throughout the preceding discussion I have side-stepped the issue of partial resolution, i.e. cases where only part of the induced presupposition is given in the previous discourse, and a part of the information actually will have to be accommodated. For the examples where the presupposed material and its antecedent are less clearly related, in certain cases partial resolution may have been a more appropriate or correct characterization in what was going on. However, for the abstract object presuppositions shown we still face the same problems of identifying binding as before, but they become more complex because we somehow have to compare the presupposed material present in the discourse representation with the material that can function as an antecedent and then separate this latter information from the rest of the presupposed material to find out what will have to be accommodated. Trying to say something more specific about how this would work and what has to be done in my opinion would not have made understanding the examples any easier, in fact more likely the opposite. I leave this difficult question for future work, and discuss partial resolution primarily in relation to definite NPs, in chapter 6. 97
Page 1 and 2:
Presuppositions in Spoken Discourse
Page 3 and 4:
Abstract Naturally produced example
Page 5 and 6:
5.3.2 Lack of expression alternativ
Page 7:
irrational. Very warm thanks to Jul
Page 10 and 11:
Chapter 1 work about presupposition
Page 12 and 13:
Chapter 1 There are three core char
Page 14 and 15:
Chapter 2 2.5 briefly outlines seve
Page 16 and 17:
Chapter 2 (1999, p. 6). In the foll
Page 18 and 19:
Chapter 2 Because true presuppositi
Page 20 and 21:
Chapter 2 presupposed information i
Page 22 and 23:
Chapter 2 KofF(x)) will be expanded
Page 24 and 25:
Chapter 2 (28) There is a king of F
Page 26 and 27:
Chapter 2 because constraints on th
Page 28 and 29:
Chapter 2 (32) In the representatio
Page 30 and 31:
Chapter 2 information that there is
Page 32 and 33:
Chapter 2 reached. The meaning of t
Page 34 and 35:
Chapter 2 representation in some ca
Page 36 and 37:
Chapter 2 part of the presuppositio
Page 38 and 39:
Chapter 2 (49) a. Julia doesn’t h
Page 40 and 41:
Chapter 2 (53) If John has grandchi
Page 42 and 43:
Chapter 2 2.4 THE SATISFACTION THEO
Page 44 and 45:
Chapter 2 updated context is subtra
Page 46 and 47:
Chapter 2 Julia doesn’t have a br
Page 48 and 49:
Chapter 2 saliency on antecedent av
Page 50 and 51:
Chapter 2 describing defeasible inf
Page 52 and 53:
Chapter 2 effects of alternative ca
Page 54 and 55: Chapter 2 account for one of the pr
Page 57 and 58: Data and Method 3 Data and Method E
Page 59 and 60: Data and Method the communicative r
Page 61 and 62: Data and Method Speaker B. Speaker
Page 63 and 64: 3.3 THE EXCERPTED EXAMPLES AND ANAL
Page 65 and 66: Data and Method Additional excerpti
Page 67: Accommdation Binding Total number o
Page 70 and 71: Chapter 4 perceiving the coherence
Page 72 and 73: Chapter 4 (1) The doctor and the pa
Page 74 and 75: Chapter 4 (3) Gudrun spent the enti
Page 76 and 77: Chapter 4 None of the triggered pre
Page 78 and 79: Chapter 4 Speaker A: Oh no, it‘s
Page 80 and 81: Chapter 4 Speaker A How‘s things
Page 82 and 83: Chapter 4 collaborative evidenced w
Page 84 and 85: Chapter 4 This makes determining re
Page 86 and 87: Chapter 4 Speaker C: *Presumably* (
Page 88 and 89: Chapter 4 directions, it is necessa
Page 90 and 91: Chapter 4 Other corpus work has als
Page 92 and 93: Chapter 4 Consider the following ex
Page 94 and 95: Chapter 4 Speaker B Really awful, I
Page 96 and 97: Chapter 4 and its elements. The use
Page 98 and 99: Chapter 4 Here I will first give so
Page 100 and 101: Chapter 4 same as the last referenc
Page 102 and 103: Chapter 4 anaphors, suggesting that
Page 107 and 108: Accommodation and Presupposition 5
Page 109 and 110: Accommodation and Presupposition pr
Page 111 and 112: Accommodation and Presupposition (1
Page 113 and 114: Accommodation and Presupposition 5.
Page 115 and 116: Accommodation and Presupposition fo
Page 117 and 118: Accommodation and Presupposition Gl
Page 119 and 120: Accommodation and Presupposition se
Page 121 and 122: Accommodation and Presupposition po
Page 123 and 124: Accommodation and Presupposition Th
Page 125 and 126: Accommodation and Presupposition di
Page 127 and 128: Accommodation and Presupposition mo
Page 129 and 130: Accommodation and Presupposition De
Page 131 and 132: Accommodation and Presupposition pr
Page 135 and 136: Accommodation and Presupposition It
Page 137 and 138: Accommodation and Presupposition ob
Page 139 and 140: Accommodation and Presupposition th
Page 141 and 142: Accommodation and Presupposition 5.
Page 143 and 144: Accommodation and Presupposition In
Page 145 and 146: Accommodation and Presupposition in
Page 147 and 148: Accommodation and Presupposition He
Page 149 and 150: Accommodation and Presupposition mi
Page 151 and 152: Accommodation and Presupposition ad
Page 155 and 156:
Accommodation and Presupposition di
Page 157 and 158:
Accommodation and Presupposition In
Page 159 and 160:
Between Binding and Accommodation 6
Page 161 and 162:
Between Binding and Accommodation T
Page 163 and 164:
Between Binding and Accommodation i
Page 165 and 166:
Between Binding and Accommodation b
Page 167 and 168:
Between Binding and Accommodation W
Page 169 and 170:
Between Binding and Accommodation a
Page 171 and 172:
Between Binding and Accommodation t
Page 173 and 174:
Between Binding and Accommodation C
Page 175 and 176:
Between Binding and Accommodation C
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
Between Binding and Accommodation B
Page 187 and 188:
Between Binding and Accommodation t
Page 189:
Page 192 and 193:
Chapter 7 behave quite similarly to
Page 194 and 195:
Chapter 7 7.1 FUTURE WORK I strongl
Page 196 and 197:
References Archangeli, D. & D. T. L
Page 198 and 199:
Karttunen, L. (1971), ‘Some obser
Page 200:
Wilson, D. & T. Matsui (1998), ‘R
show all

Presuppositions in Spoken Discourse

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?