1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Pragmatics & Cognition
  4. Volume 30, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 30, Issue 1
  • ISSN 0929-0907
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9943
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This article addresses, experimentally, the question of how presuppositions are cognitively processed and retrieved in discourse. In the proposed research, we have administered tweets produced by Italian politicians to native speakers so as to assess how easily they could retrieve the presupposed content of two presupposition triggers (definite descriptions and change of state verbs), as opposed to their explicit paraphrase, by answering verification questions. Results showed that content presupposed by change of state verbs was likely to receive more attention than content conveyed by definite descriptions; this could possibly be due to the greater effort involved in mentally representing the event taken for granted by the predicates. Definite descriptions, on the contrary, seem to instruct to a shallower processing modality, which means that their content is processed less attentively or in a ‘good-enough’ way.

© 2023 John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/pc.22011.mas
2023-11-09
2024-10-08

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/pc.22011.mas
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Bach, Kent
    1999 The myth of conventional implicature. Linguistics and Philosophy221. 327–366. 10.1023/A:1005466020243
     https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005466020243 [Google Scholar]
  2. Barlaz, Marissa
    2022 Ordinal logistic regression in R. https://marissabarlaz.github.io/portfolio/ols/ (Last access: 18 November 2022)
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Barr, Dale J., Roger Levy, Christoph Scheepers & Harry J. Tily
    2013 Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language681. 255–278. 10.1016/j.jml.2012.11.001
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2012.11.001 [Google Scholar]
  4. Borst, Jelmer P., Niels A. Taatgen & Hedderik van Rij
    2010 The problem state: A cognitive bottleneck in multitasking. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, Cognition36(2). 363–382. 10.1037/a0018106
     https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018106 [Google Scholar]
  5. Barton, Stephen B. & Anthony J. Sanford
    1993 A case study of anomaly detection: Shallow semantic processing and cohesion establishment. Memory & Cognition21(4). 477–487. 10.3758/BF03197179
     https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03197179 [Google Scholar]
  6. Brauer, Markus & John J. Curtin
    2018 Linear mixed-effects models and the analysis of non-independent data: A unified framework to analyze categorical and continuous independent variables that vary within-subjects and/or within items. Psychological Methods23(3). 389–411. 10.1037/met0000159
     https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000159 [Google Scholar]
  7. Brocca, Nicola, Davide Garassino & Viviana Masia
    2016 Politici nella rete o nella rete dei politici? L’implicito nella comunicazione politica italiana su Twitter. PhiN-Beiheft111. 68–79.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Burkhardt, Petra
    2007 The P600 reflects cost of new information in discourse memory. NeuroReport18(17). 1851–1854. 10.1097/WNR.0b013e3282f1a999
     https://doi.org/10.1097/WNR.0b013e3282f1a999 [Google Scholar]
  9. Chafe, Wallace
    1994 Discourse, consciousness, and time: The flow and displacement of conscious experience in speaking and writing. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Christensen, Rune Haubo B.
    2019 Ordinal-regression models for ordinal data. R package version 2019, 12–10. Available online at: https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/ordinal/index.html (Last access: 4 December 2021).
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Christiansen, Morten H. & Nick Chater
    2016 The now-or-never bottleneck: A fundamental constraint on language. Behavioral and Brain Sciences391. e62. 10.1017/S0140525X1500031X
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X1500031X [Google Scholar]
  12. de Saussure, Louis
    2013 Background relevance. Journal of Pragmatics591. 178–189. 10.1016/j.pragma.2013.08.009
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.08.009 [Google Scholar]
  13. de Saussure, Louis & Steve Oswald
    2009 Argumentation et engagement du locuteur: Pour un point de vue subjectiviste. Nouveaux cahiers de linguistique française291. 215–243.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Domaneschi, Filippo & Di Paola, Simona
    2018 The Processing Costs of Presupposition Accommodation. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research47(3):483–503. 10.1007/s10936‑017‑9534‑7
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-017-9534-7 [Google Scholar]
  15. Domaneschi, Filippo, Elena Carrea, Carlo Penco & Alberto Greco
    2014 The cognitive load of presupposition triggers: Mandatory and optional repairs in presupposition failure. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience291. 136–146. 10.1080/01690965.2013.830185
     https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2013.830185 [Google Scholar]
  16. Domaneschi, Filippo, Paolo Canal, Viviana Masia, Edoardo Lombardi Vallauri & Valentina Bambini
    2018 N400 and P600 modulation in presupposition accommodation: The effect of different trigger types. Journal of Neurolinguistics451. 13–35. 10.1016/j.jneuroling.2017.08.002
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneuroling.2017.08.002 [Google Scholar]
  17. Drai, Nathanaël & Louis de Saussure
    2016 Quand l’implicite devient explicite: D’un accident expérimental à une étude pilote. Syntaxe et Sémantique 2016/1(17). 115–133. 10.3917/ss.017.0115
     https://doi.org/10.3917/ss.017.0115 [Google Scholar]
  18. Endresen, Anna & Laura A. Janda
    2016 Five statistical models for Likert-type experimental data on acceptability judgments. Journal of Research Design and Statistics in Linguistics and Communication Science3(2). 217–250. 10.1558/jrds.30822
     https://doi.org/10.1558/jrds.30822 [Google Scholar]
  19. Ferreira, Fernanda & Matthew W. Lowder
    2016 Prediction, information structure, and good-enough language processing. Psychology of Learning and Motivation651. 217–247. 10.1016/bs.plm.2016.04.002
     https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.plm.2016.04.002 [Google Scholar]
  20. Garassino, Davide, Viviana Masia & Nicola Brocca
    2019 Tweet as you speak. The role of implicit strategies and pragmatic functions in political communication: Data from a diamesic comparison. Rassegna Italiana di Linguistica Applicata2–31. 187–208.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Garassino, Davide, Nicola Brocca & Viviana Masia
    2022 Is implicit communication quantifiable? A corpus-based analysis of British and Italian political tweets. Journal of Pragmatics1941. 9–22. 10.1016/j.pragma.2022.03.024
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2022.03.024 [Google Scholar]
  22. Gries, Stefan T.
    2020 On classification trees and random forests in corpus linguistics: Some words of caution and suggestions for improvement. Corpus Linguistics & Linguistic Theory16(3). 617–647. 10.1515/cllt‑2018‑0078
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt-2018-0078 [Google Scholar]
  23. Hothorn, Torsten, Kurt Hornik & Achim Zeileis
    2006 Unbiased recursive partitioning: A conditional inference framework. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics15(3). 651–674. 10.1198/106186006X133933
     https://doi.org/10.1198/106186006X133933 [Google Scholar]
  24. Levinson, Stephen
    1983 Pragmatics. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511813313
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511813313 [Google Scholar]
  25. Loftus, Elizabeth F.
    1975 Leading questions and the eyewitness report. Cognitive Psychology7(4). 560–572. 10.1016/0010‑0285(75)90023‑7
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(75)90023-7 [Google Scholar]
  26. Lombardi Vallauri, Edoardo
    2016 The “exaptation” of linguistic implicit strategies. Springer Plus51. 1106. 10.1186/s40064‑016‑2788‑y
     https://doi.org/10.1186/s40064-016-2788-y [Google Scholar]
  27. 2019 La lingua disonesta. Roma: Carocci.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Lombardi Vallauri, Edoardo & Viviana Masia
    2014 Implicitness impact: Measuring texts. Journal of Pragmatics611. 161–184. 10.1016/j.pragma.2013.09.010
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.09.010 [Google Scholar]
  29. Lombardi Vallauri, Edoardo & Viviana Masia
    2015 Facilitating automation in sentence processing: The emergence of topic and presupposition in human communication. Topoi37(2). 343–354. 10.1007/s11245‑016‑9417‑9
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11245-016-9417-9 [Google Scholar]
  30. Lowder, Matthew W. & Peter C. Gordon
    2015 Focus takes time: Structural effects on reading. Psychonomic Bulletin Review221. 1733–1738. 10.3758/s13423‑015‑0843‑2
     https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-015-0843-2 [Google Scholar]
  31. Lucisano, Pietro & Maria E. Piemontese
    1988 GULPEASE: Una formula per la predizione della difficoltà dei testi in lingua italiana. Scuola e cittàXXXIX (3). 110–124.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Lüdecke, Daniel
    2018 ggeffects: Tidy data frames of marginal effects from regression models. Journal of Open Source Software3(26). 772. 10.21105/joss.00772
     https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.00772 [Google Scholar]
  33. Lyons, John
    1977 Semantics. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Kirsten, Mareike, Sonja Tiemann, Verena C. Seibold, Ingo Hertrich, Sigrid Beck & Bettina Rolke
    2014 When the polar bear encounters many polar bears: Event-related potential context effects evoked by uniqueness failure. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience29(9). 1147–1162. 10.1080/23273798.2014.899378
     https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2014.899378 [Google Scholar]
  35. Masia, Viviana, Paolo Canal, Irene Ricci, Edoardo Lombardi Vallauri & Valentina Bambini
    2017 Presupposition of new information as a pragmatic garden path: Evidence from Event-related brain potentials. Journal of Neurolinguistics421. 31–48. 10.1016/j.jneuroling.2016.11.005
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneuroling.2016.11.005 [Google Scholar]
  36. Morency, Patrick, Steve Oswald & Louis de Saussure
    2008 Explicitness, implicitness and commitment attribution: A cognitive pragmatic approach. Belgian Journal of Linguistics221. 197–219. 10.1075/bjl.22.10mor
     https://doi.org/10.1075/bjl.22.10mor [Google Scholar]
  37. Müller, Misha L.
    2018 Accommodation: A cognitive heuristic for background information. Anglophonia251. Available online at: https://journals.openedition.org/anglophonia/1491. 10.4000/anglophonia.1491
     https://doi.org/10.4000/anglophonia.1491 [Google Scholar]
  38. Piciucco, Emanuela, Viviana Masia, Emanuele Maiorana, Edoardo Lombardi Vallauri & Patrizio Campisi
    2022 Information structure effects on the processing of nouns and verbs: Evidence from event-related brain potentials. Language and Cognition14(1). 85–108. 10.1017/langcog.2021.23
     https://doi.org/10.1017/langcog.2021.23 [Google Scholar]
  39. Pinker, Steven, Martin A. Nowak & James J. Lee
    2008 The logic of indirect speech. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences105(3). 833–838. 10.1073/pnas.0707192105
     https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0707192105 [Google Scholar]
  40. R Core Team
    R Core Team 2022 R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. Available online at: https://www.R-project.org/ (Last access: 24 May 2023).
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Sbisà, Marina
    2007 Pathways to explicitness. Lingue e Linguaggio61. 101–120.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Schwarz, Florian
    2015 Presuppositions vs. asserted content in online processing. InFlorian Schwarz (ed.), Experimental perspectives on presupposition: Studies in theoretical psycholinguistics, 89–108. Dordrecht: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑07980‑6_4
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-07980-6_4 [Google Scholar]
  43. Sperber, Dan & Deirdre Wilson
    1995 Relevance: Communication and cognition, 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Sperber, Dan, Fabrice Clément, Cristophe Heintz, Olivier Mascaro, Hugo Mercier, Gloria Origgi & Deirdre Wilson
    2010 Epistemic vigilance. Mind and Language25(4). 359–393. 10.1111/j.1468‑0017.2010.01394.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0017.2010.01394.x [Google Scholar]
  45. Stalnaker, Robert
    1973 Presuppositions. Journal of Philosophical Logic2(4). 447–457. 10.1007/BF00262951
     https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00262951 [Google Scholar]
  46. 2002 Common ground. Linguistics and Philosophy251. 701–721. 10.1023/A:1020867916902
     https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020867916902 [Google Scholar]
  47. Tiemann, Sonja
    2014 The processing of wieder (“again”) and other presupposition triggers. Tübingen: Universität Tübingen PhD dissertation.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Tiemann, Sonja, Mareike Schmid, Nadine Bade, Bettina Rolke, Ingo Hertrich, Herman Ackermann, Julia Knapp & Sigrid Beck
    2011 Psycholinguistic evidence for presuppositions: On-line and off-line data. InIngo Reich, Eva Horch & Dennis Pauly (eds.), Proceedings of Sinn & Bedeutung151, 581–595. Saarbrucken: Saarland University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  49. von Fintel, Kai
    2008 What is presupposition accommodation, again?Philosophical Perspectives22(1). 137–170. 10.1111/j.1520‑8583.2008.00144.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1520-8583.2008.00144.x [Google Scholar]
  50. Wickham, Hadley
    2019 Welcome to the tidyverse. Journal of Open Source Software, 4(43). 1686. 10.21105/joss.01686
     https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01686 [Google Scholar]
  51. Wilson, Deirdre
    1975 Presuppositions and non-truth-conditional semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation PhD dissertation.
  52. Wilson, Deirdre & Dan Sperber
    1979 Ordered entailments: An alternative to presuppositional theories. Syntax and Semantics111. 299–323. 10.1163/9789004368880_014
     https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368880_014 [Google Scholar]
  53. 1981/1979 On Grice’s theory of conversation. InPaul Werth (ed.), Conversation and discourse, 155–178. London: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/pc.22011.mas
Loading
Recalling presupposed information
Pragmatics & Cognition 30, 92 (2023); https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.22011.mas
/content/journals/10.1075/pc.22011.mas
/content/journals/10.1075/pc.22011.mas
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): information recall and retrieval; presupposition; shallow processing; Twitter

Most Cited

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