Presuppositions in Spoken Discourse

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Chapter 5 presupposition triggered and on the type of embedding where the triggering expression occurs. Before I elaborate more on these ideas I should like to point out that several researchers have made vague or implicit suggestions that projection may differ according to the type of embedding. For example, the idea that triggered presuppositions may have different tendencies to project globally depending on the type of embedding is implicit in Geurts (2001) who tests both the IP and BP with presuppositions under different types of embeddings in order to see if there is a difference. He didn’t find one, but I would argue that one of the reasons may be because all his examples except one are of definite NPs, i.e. he is testing only one trigger type. That the IP makes different predictions depending on the type of embedding has been used as an argument against it, but this objection is only relevant if we assume that accommodation preferences will be to the highest level. If the assumption that higher levels are preferred over lower levels is not confirmed, we can no longer use the different predictions of the IP as an argument for dismissing it as an explanation for tendencies in level of accommodation. Instead we have good reason to look more closely at actual interpretations in the corpus data to see whether they confirm or disconfirm these different predictions of the IP. In conclusion, believing that there are different tendencies does not necessarily mean a rejection of the IP or the BP, but instead that our explanation will have to account for more heterogenous data. If there are differences in projection by trigger type, why haven’t we seen these differences before? This is an important question. I think the answer is that we have been looking at the wrong type of data, in fact data that could perhaps never tell us whether or not there is a preference for global accommodation. The biggest difference between my investigation and the earlier ones I have been discussing lies in the data that has been examined. In fact, we could reject the corpus results here and ascribe them to sparse data and to chance – and granted, the frequency data is slight. Because surely, as has already been shown in chapter 2, we can take any sentence with any of the presupposition triggers and embed this sentence under any of the logical operators and we will most likely get an interpretation where the presupposition projects out, i.e. global accommodation. But I would say this is just the method that gives us the wrong type of example. We may unwittingly choose examples with characteristics that make them particularly suited for being part of the main context when embedded. We then embed them to see if this changes our interpretation, but the operators that create these embeddings are applied to examples where the presupposition was already considered part of the main context. Because the interpreter has already been exposed to the positive, often declarative version of an unembedded presupposition. It is not hard to understand that when the sentence is written as a new version which embeds the presupposed information under some operator that the tendency will be to continue to treat the presupposed information as something that was already known, and trying to get a non-presupposing reading then involves 142
Accommodation and Presupposition additional effort and will generally be considered by the interpreter to be a less natural reading. When we are presented with examples where the presupposed information is already embedded under some type of logical operator, it is more often than not without a context. But how can we use decontextualized examples to illustrate and make conclusions about preferences for presupposition projection when everyone agrees that resolving a presupposition to the right level of accommodation is a context-dependent process. There may be a preference to use presuppositions with higher levels of accommodation, but I am not sure if we could ever prove or disprove it using this particular method. Other work has also pointed out that decontextualized examples will often give misleading information about preferences. For example, Delin (1995) has shown that the use of decontextualized examples in the literature on it-cleft presuppositions has led to it-cleft presuppositions incorrectly being confused with shared-knowledge. She points out that this is because the intonation associated with a decontextualized, unmarked it-cleft in written form phonetically focuses the clefted constituent and the cleft complement is not focused at all. This intonation strongly suggests that the presupposed information is shared information. But naturally produced clefts regularly appear with different intonation patterns and these lead to different interpretations of the presupposition. Adding explicit information about prosodic prominence is a way to simulate context, and can thereby force a reading with local or intermediate accommodation. This is illustrated in the examples below. The a-sentences are presented without marked intonation, and the b-sentences have been marked to encourage a particular prosodic realization. The a-sentences strongly suggest a reading with global accommodation, whereas the b-sentences strongly suggest a reading with local accommodation. (46) a. John might know that Mike has been stealing funds. b. John MIGHT KNOW that Mike HAS been stealing funds. b-sentence suggests: we are not sure if Mike has been stealing funds. (47) a. John might not know that a decision was made. b. John MIGHT NOT KNOW that a decision WAS made. b-sentence suggests: we are unsure if a decision was made Analogous to the it-clefts studied by Delin (1995), default intonation conspires to encourage the impression that the presupposed information is shared information, – “normal” or “default” intonation of decontextualized examples lead us to believe that this is the default usage. I would argue further that especially for factives, the 143
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 104 and 105: Chapter 4 For many of the examples,
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: Accommodation and Presupposition mi
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: Between Binding and Accommodation b
Page 185 and 186: Between Binding and Accommodation B
Page 187 and 188: Between Binding and Accommodation t
Page 189: Between Binding and Accommodation b
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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?