Presuppositions in Spoken Discourse

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Chapter 6 information from several sources. So instead of the textbook case of one definite NP having one anchor, we more frequently see multiple anchors, as well as multiple links between anchors and even combinations thereof. None of the current theoretical approaches to bridging seem to take the presence of multiple anchors seriously, let alone integrate them into their proposals for resolving bridging inferences. If current definitions are consistently applied to naturally produced discourse with a rich context, the number of relationships that will be recognized as bridging is far greater than the relationships generally perceived as bridging by annotators, in effect overgenerating bridging relationships. I believe that the presence of multiple anchors indicates that bridging is actually more accurately seen as a relationship between a discourse-new individual and the discourse context, and not a unique inference based on the presence of another unique individual in the context. Treating bridging anaphora as related to the context also necessitates a third resolution category within the binding theory of presupposition, distinguishing between binding, bridging and accommodation. I also argue that only a subgroup of the relationships identified as bridging can be fruitfully treated by the same method. This subgroup can be delimited by identifying some core characteristics of bridging anaphora. The result is a more homogeneous set of relationships that is also motivated to a greater extent on semantic grounds. 6.1 WHAT IS BRIDGING? The term ‘bridging’ refers to the recognition of a relationship between discoursenew information that is strongly related to discourse-given information, and where this recognition is essential to understanding the role of the discourse-new information in the message. The following two classical examples are what most linguists probably associate with the term ‘bridging.’ (1) Mary took the picnic supplies out of the trunk. The beer was warm. 1 (2) I walked into the room. The chandeliers sparkled brightly. 2 I will use the term ‘bridging NP’ for a noun phrase that is interpreted by means of a bridging inference or assumption, 3 the term ‘anchor’ for the information contributed by an earlier discourse-given linguistic expression which seems to be licensing the use of the definite description of the bridging NP, the term ‘link’ for what this relationships is based on, and reserve the term ‘antecedent’ for coreferential relationships. In example (1) above the beer is the bridging NP, the picnic supplies is the anchor, and the link refers to the relationship between beer and picnic supplies. 1 From Haviland & Clark (1974) 2 From Clark (1975). 3 Clark speaks of them as implicatures, but I will refrain from using this term. 152
Between Binding and Accommodation These uses of definite NPs have been termed ‘inferables’ by Prince (1981), ‘associative anaphoric uses’ by Hawkins (1978), and ‘indirect anaphors’ by Erku & Gundel (1987). There is actually a great deal of confusion about what types of examples should be considered to involve bridging inferences, and many would probably be surprised by Clark’s (1975) original application of the term, where it is used to cover a wide range of relationships including what we now classify as rhetorical relationships. These are summarized in Table 10, given on the next page where I have also repeated one of Clark’s original examples to illustrate each category. There are several interesting points here. Included among the examples are pronominal anaphors and co-referential NPs with the same head noun. These types of examples are usually not considered key examples of bridging in other work, and this may be because the inference needed to resolve co-referential relationships of this kind are fairly straightforward. Bridging is more frequently applied to more difficult examples, such as Her house was large. The size surprised me. According to Clark, in order to understand the reference for size we need to infer that it must be the size invoked by large. Note that the example given in the table for pronominalization would be subsumed under abstract object anaphoric reference in recent approaches. Epithets is a group of co-referential bridging relationships where the bridging NP adds descriptive information about the individual referent. Set-membership subsumes several well-known examples of different types of plural anaphora. In the two categories under indirect reference the examples that are generally associated with the term ‘bridging’ in other later work are found. These include the category necessary parts as in room-ceiling, necessary because a room almost always has a ceiling, probably parts as in room-window, because rooms generally have windows, and inducible parts, illustrated in the table with went shopping-the climb, where the climb is meant to be understood as intending to refer to part of the shopping event. The classical example given in (2) above also illustrates inducible parts, e.g. room-chandeliers. The relationships termed indirect characterizations have to do with different roles in events. These roles can be necessary or optional. For example, in the event referred to by John was murdered, the murderer is a necessary role, but in the event referred to by John died, the murderer is an optional role. Finally, the last category contains what we today would consider to be rhetorical relations, relationships of reasons, causes and consequence. For example the following is considered a reason, and is also taken from Clark. 153
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 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: Between Binding and Accommodation 6
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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?