Presuppositions in Spoken Discourse

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Chapter 4 Speaker B Really awful, I it was nothing, it was nothing, I said I didn‘t say anything . Speaker c Oh God. Speaker B So anyway . by the time she‘d finished sort of telling me off and me saying, now what‘s the good of quarrelling, it‘s so trivial and… In the above example, an abstract object pronoun or even an ellipse could have been used, to read “by the time she’d finished that/ ∅” but the rhetorical effect would be lost, and the additional descriptive information that the presupposition contributes to the understanding of the speakers perception of what the “harangue” really was would be lost. All of the presuppositional expressions of this type could be replaced with a pronominal expression. This wouldn’t cause a loss of meaning, but it would cause a loss of rhetorical effect. These examples the presupposed information can be replaced with an abstract object anaphor is because the predicated information about the antecedent is so similar to the predicated information about the triggered presupposition. This makes the relationship unambiguously identifiable, even when an anaphoric expression is used. But a pronominal alternative cannot contribute rhetorical effects like presuppositions can. The examples in the following section are different in that the presuppositional expression could not be replaced with a pronominal anaphor. However, it still seems to be bound. In the first example the reactions of the other participants are taken as clues to binding. In the second example understanding a relationship is necessary for perceiving the discourse as coherent. 4.3.3 Reactions by other participants point to the binding relationship being perceived In the following example the presupposed material does not express exactly the same semantic content as the potential antecedent, similar to the examples in the previous section. Because of this, it is not clear what the truth-conditional difference will be between a binding resolution and a resolution via accommodation. But this example differs from the preceding ones in that the presupposition cannot be replaced with a pronoun and part of the reason for this is that the potential antecedent is quite far from the triggering expression. The distance probably also contributes to the difficulty in perceiving what difference resolution by binding and resolution by accommodation would make. Finally, there was no clear rhetorical effect that encourages us to recognize a binding relationship. However, there is evidence that the hearer did perceive a binding relationship: (22) factive, triggered p: "He is enthusiastic (He = Prof. Pitt)" (2-1@ 120) Speaker A: Also Pitt has talked about it a good deal. Professor Pitt here, and he has supported. (a) (SEVERAL LINES) Yes, he has supported you (b) is it with the Cambridge Press. 86
He has supported you quite strongly (c) and we had (UNTIL LINE 1015, i.e. 895 lines) Anaphors and Bound Presuppositions Speaker A: You could indeed but I should continue also to give Professor Pitt‘s since I know that Speaker B: Know that he is enthusiastic Speaker A: Yes, quite. He supported you very strongly. (d) Having supported someone strongly is not a synonym to being enthusiastic but they both do express what are at least compatible positive attitudes. This makes their meaning similar enough consider the sentiment expressed by the former as a potential antecedent for the latter. What evidence do we have that Speaker A is binding the presupposed information with the previous statement? Actually, I think we have quite strong evidence of this because Speaker A in line (d) repeats the utterance from which the antecedent material is derived almost word for word! Similar effects have been shown in cases of long-distance relationships between anaphors and their antecedents, discussed in Fox (1987) and Walker (1996), where often the same strings of words from the earlier context where an antecedent was last used are repeated by discourse participants when another anaphoric reference is made to the referent. Fox (1987) gave several examples of this in her book. For example the following (p.53-54) (23) Long-distance anaphor with lexical repetition, taken from Fox (1987, p. 53-54) Speaker C: I heard Little was making frames and sending them to California. [2 pages of intervening talk] Speaker G: That’s all – he don’t have any kids, him and his wife never had any kids and… Speaker C: (clears throat) Speaker G: (Whatta) they got you know… 0.5 Speaker C: Well… Speaker G: Well I guess – 0.7 Speaker C: T, nah, he helped Speaker G: He’s got he’s got eight units that he rents out and Speaker C: He helped uh, Merkie build his T bucket up, I saw Merkie’s is un is a darn nice looking little bucket. 1.0 Speaker C: En then I, ex I heard det- you know he built a couple of them up and he used to build frames for guys. And then he uh see sent a couple of them to California. Fox considers the case in point to be a return pop, for the interpretation of the anaphoric expression he. Return pops are the reintroduction of a discourse topic 87
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 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 133 and 134: Accommodation and Presupposition Th
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 153 and 154:
Accommodation and Presupposition Th
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?