1887
Volume 22, Issue 3
  • ISSN 0929-0907
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9943
GBP
Buy:£15.00 + Taxes

Abstract

According to the Common Ground account proposed by Stalnaker (2002, 2009), speakers involved in a verbal interaction have different propositional attitudes towards presuppositions. In this paper we propose an experimental study aimed at estimating the psychological plausibility of the Stalnakerian model. In particular, the goal of our experiment is to evaluate variations in accepting as appropriate a sentence that triggers a presupposition, where different attitudes are taken towards the presupposition required. The study conducted suggests that if a speaker has the attitude of towards the content of a presupposition, she may evaluate an utterance as more appropriate in a shorter time than in cases where she holds an attitude of or of . Therefore, data collected support the psychological soundness of what might be considered the main, but also most debated, theory of presupposition on the market.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/pc.22.3.01dom
2016-09-26
2018-10-23
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Camp, C.J. , Lachman, J.L. , & Lachman, R
    (1980) Evidence for direct-access and inferential retrieval in question-answering. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour, 19(5), 583–596. doi: 10.1016/S0022‑5371(80)90639‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(80)90639-8 [Google Scholar]
  2. Chemla, E
    (2009a) Universal implicatures and free choice effects: Experimental data. Semantics & Pragmatics, 2(2), 1–33. doi: 10.3765/sp.2.2
    https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.2.2 [Google Scholar]
  3. (2009b) Presuppositions of quantified sentences: Experimental data. Natural Language Semantics, 17(4), 299–340. doi: 10.1007/s11050‑009‑9043‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-009-9043-9 [Google Scholar]
  4. Chemla, E. , & Spector, B
    (2011) Experimental evidence for embedded scalar implicatures. Journal of Semantics, 28(3), 359–400. doi: 10.1093/jos/ffq023
    https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffq023 [Google Scholar]
  5. Chemla, E. , Homer, V. , & Rothschild, D
    (2011) Modularity and intuitions in formal semantics: The case of polarity items. Linguistics and Philosophy (in press).
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Collins, A.M. , & Loftus, E.F
    (1975) A spreading-activation theory of semantic processing. Psychological Review, 82(6), 407–428. doi: 10.1037/0033‑295X.82.6.407
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.82.6.407 [Google Scholar]
  7. Domaneschi F
    (2011) “Towards a normative epistemic account of presuppositions”. in Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 15, pp.3822–3831 2011 DOI: 10.1016/j.pragma.2011.09.011
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.09.011 [Google Scholar]
  8. (2016b), “Introduction: Presuppositions Philosophy, Linguistics and Psychology”, Topoi, 35:5–8. doi: 10.1007/s11245‑014‑9297‑91
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11245-014-9297-91 [Google Scholar]
  9. Domaneschi F , Carrea E , Penco C and Greco A
    (2016a) Selecting Presuppositions in Conditional Clauses. Results from a Psycholinguistic Experiment. Front. Psychol. 6:2026. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.02026
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.02026 [Google Scholar]
  10. Domaneschi, F. , Carrea, E. , Penco, C. , & Greco, A
    (2014) “The cognitive load of presupposition triggers. Mandatory and optional repairs in presupposition failure. Language and Cognitive Processes, 29(1). doi: 10.1080/01690965.2013.830185.
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2013.830185 [Google Scholar]
  11. Gauker, C
    (1998) What is a context of utterance?. Philosophical Studies, 91, 149–172. doi: 10.1023/A:1004247202476
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1004247202476 [Google Scholar]
  12. (2002) Words Without Meaning. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Glanzberg, M
    (2003) Felicity and presupposition triggers. Paper presented at the University of Michigan Workshop in Philosophy and Linguistics , Michigan, USA.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Kahneman, D
    (2003) A perspective on judgment and choice: Mapping bounded rationality. American Psychologist58(9): 697–720. doi: 10.1037/0003‑066X.58.9.697
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.58.9.697 [Google Scholar]
  15. Johnson-Laird, P.N
    (1983) Mental Models: Towards a Cognitive Science of Language, Inference, and Consciousness. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Levinson, S.C
    (1983) Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Norman, D.A. , & Rumelhart, D.E
    (1975) Explorations in Cognition. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Russell, Bertrand
    (1918), “The Philosophy of Logical Atomism”, The Monist, 1918. Reprinted, pp. 177–281 in Logic and Knowledge: Essays 1901–1950, Robert Charles Marsh (ed.), Unwin Hyman, London, UK, 1956. Reprinted, pp. 35–155 in The Philosophy of Logical Atomism, David Pears (ed.), Open Court, La Salle, IL, 1985.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Stalnaker, R
    (2002) Common ground. Linguistics and Philosophy, 25(5-6), 701–721. doi: 10.1023/A:1020867916902
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020867916902 [Google Scholar]
  20. (2009) A response to Abbott on presupposition and common ground. Linguistics and Philosophy, 31, 539–544. doi: 10.1007/s10988‑008‑9047‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-008-9047-9 [Google Scholar]
  21. Schwarz, F
    (2007) Processing presupposed content. Journal of Semantics, 24, 373–416. doi: 10.1093/jos/ffm011
    https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffm011 [Google Scholar]
  22. Tiemann, S. , & Schmid, M . et al
    (2011) Psycholinguistic evidence for presuppositions: On-line and off-line data. In I. Reich et al (Eds.), Proceedings of Sinn & Bedeutung15: 581–595.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/pc.22.3.01dom
Loading
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error