Processing Presuppositions. Are Implicative Verbs Soft Triggers?

Mateusz Włodarczyk

doi:10.18778/1731-7533.19.1.04

Authors

Mateusz Włodarczyk University of Szczecin, Poland

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18778/1731-7533.19.1.04

Keywords:

conversational implicature, implicative verbs, presuppositions

Abstract

This paper investigates the question whether implicative verbs should be considered as soft presupposition triggers, i.e., as triggers activating optional context repairs. I present the results of an experiment in which test subjects were asked to read short dialogues containing either presupposition triggers or conversational implicatures and, next, answer the questions regarding the information communicated on the level of presupposition or implicatures, respectively. The results of within-subject ANOVA show that presuppositions activated by the use of implicative verbs are significantly less accessible and illicit significantly longer response times than presuppositions activated by the use of hard triggers, suggesting that they can be classified as soft presupposition triggers. The obtained results also show that presuppositions activated by the use of different triggers are heterogenous in regards to the accessibility of information.

References

Abbott, Barbara. 2000. Presuppositions as nonassertions. Journal of pragmatics, 32(10), 1419-1437. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00108-3
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00108-3

Abusch, Dorit. 2002. Lexical alternatives as a source of pragmatic presuppositions. Semantics and Linguistic Theory,12, 1-19. https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v12i0.2867
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v12i0.2867

Abusch, Dorit. 2010. Presupposition triggering from alternatives. Journal of Semantics, 27(1), 37-80.https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffp009
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffp009

Beaver, David, Geurts, Bart. 2014. Presupposition, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, N. Zalta (ed.), URL = . https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011516-033952
Google Scholar

Beaver, David, et al. 2017. Questions under discussion: Where information structure meets projective content. Annual Review of Linguistics, 3, 265-284.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011516-033952

Domaneschi, Filippo. 2016. Presuppositions and Cognitive Processes: Understanding the Information Taken for Granted. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-57942-3
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-57942-3

Domaneschi, Filippo, Di Paola, Simone. 2018. The Processing Costs of Presupposition Accommodation. Journal of psycholinguistic research, 47(3), 483-503. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-017-9534-7
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-017-9534-7

Von Fintel, Kai. 2008. What is presupposition accommodation, again?. Philosophical perspectives, 22(1), 137-170. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1520-8583.2008.00144.x
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1520-8583.2008.00144.x

Frege, Gottlob. 1892. Über Sinn und Bedeutung. Zeitschrift für Philosophie und philosophische Kritik, C: 25–50. Sense and Reference. Translation by Max Black. The Philosophical Review 57:3, 209–230. https://doi.org/10.2307/2181485
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2181485

Geis, Michael, L., Zwicky, Arnold, M. 1971. On invited inferences. Linguistic inquiry, 2(4), 561-566.
Google Scholar

Jayez, Jacques, et al. 2015. Weak and strong triggers. In Florian Schwarz (ed.), Experimental perspectives on presuppositions, 173-193. New York: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-07980-6_8
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-07980-6_8

Glanzberg, Michael. 2003. Felicity and presupposition triggers. University of Michigan Workshop in Philosophy and Linguistics
Google Scholar

Glanzberg, Michael. 2005. Presuppositions, truth values and expressing propositions. In Gerhard Preyer and Georg Peter (eds.), Contextualism in philosophy: Knowledge, meaning, and truth. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Google Scholar

Karttunen, Lauri. 1971. Implicative verbs. Language, 340-358. https://doi.org/10.2307/412084
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/412084

Karttunen, Lauri. 2016. Presupposition: What went wrong?. Semantics and Linguistic Theory (Vol. 26), 705-731. https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v26i0.3954
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v26i0.3954

Levinson, Stephen, C. 1983. Pragmatics. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Google Scholar

Lewis, David. 1979. Scorekeeping in a language game. In Bäuerle Rainer, Urs Egli, and Av Stechow (eds.) Semantics from different points of view, 172-187. Springer Berlin Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-67458-7_12
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-67458-7_12

Roberts, Craige. 2015. Accommodation in a language game. In Barry Loewer, and Jonathan Schaffer (eds.) A Companion to David Lewis, 345-366. John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118398593.ch22
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118398593.ch22

Sadock, J. 1978. On Testing for Conversational Implicature. In Peter Cole (ed.), Syntax and Semantics Volume 9: Pragmatics, 281-298. New York: Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368873_011
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368873_011

Schwarz, Florian. (Ed.). 2014. Experimental perspectives on presuppositions (Vol. 45). Springer.
Google Scholar

Simons, Mandy. 2013. On the conversational basis of some presuppositions. In Marco Carapezza, Franco Lo Piparo and Alessandro Capone (eds.) Perspectives on linguistic pragmatics, 329-348. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-01014-4_13
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-01014-4_13

Noveck, Ira, A., Sperber, Dan. 2004. Experimental pragmatics. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230524125
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230524125

Stalnaker, Robert. 1974. Pragmatic Presuppositions, In Milton K. Munitz and Peter K. Unger (eds.), Semantics and Philosophy. New York: New York University Press.
Google Scholar

Stalnaker, Robert. 1998. On the representation of context. Journal of Logic, Language and Information, 7(1), 3-19. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008254815298
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008254815298

Stalnaker, Robert. 2002. Common ground. Linguistics and philosophy, 25(5), 701-721. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020867916902
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020867916902

Strawson, Peter, F. 1950. On referring. Mind, 59(235), 320-344. https://doi.org/10.1093/mind/LIX.235.320
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/mind/LIX.235.320

Tiemann, Sonja, et al. 2011. Psycholinguistic evidence for presuppositions: On-line and off-line data. Proceedings of sinn and bedeutung, 15(15).
Google Scholar

Davis, Wayne. 2019. Implicature, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = .
Google Scholar

Witek, Maciej. 2019. Accommodation in Linguistic Interaction. On the so-called triggering problem. In Piotr Stalmaszczyk (ed.), Philosophical Insights into Pragmatics, Berlin and Boston: De Gruyter, 163-192. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110628937-009
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110628937-009

Włodarczyk, Mateusz. 2019. Are Implicative Verbs Presupposition Triggers? Evidence from Polish. In Maciej Witek, Iwona Witczak-Plisiecka (eds.), Varieties and Dynamics of Speech Actions, 206-230. Leiden: Brill Rodopi. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004366527_011
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004366527_011