Abstract
There are three ways to refer to a fact from the complement of afactive verb: (1) Via abstract object anaphoric reference, or, witha full sentential complement that will be interpreted either (2) asa bound presupposition or (3) as triggering a presupposition of afact that will have to be accommodated. Spoken corpus examplesreveal that these three possibilities differ in relation to thetype of information they tend to contribute, and this has twoeffects. First, the information status of the fact and its role inthe discourse seem to affect the preference for one constructionover another in a particular context. Second, presupposed factivecomplements that need to be accommodated tend to be hearer-new andthe focus of the utterance, meaning that information structureseems to contribute to the felicity of accommodation ofpresupposed facts.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Asher, N., 1993, Reference to Abstract Objects in Discourse, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Blutner, R., 2000, “Some aspects of optimality in natural language interpretation,” Journal of Semantics 17, 189–217.
Delin, J., 1995, “Presupposition and shared knowledge in it-clefts,” Language and Cognitive Processes 10, 97–120.
Eckert, M. and Strube, M., 2000, “Dialogue acts, synchronising units and anaphora,” Journal of Semantics 17, 51–89.
Geurts, B., 1999, Presuppositions and Pronouns, Current Research in the Semantics/Pragmatics Interface, Vol. 3, Oxford: Elsevier Science.
Gundel, J.K., 1994, “On different kinds of focus,” pp. 457–466 in Focus in Natural Language Processing, Vol. 3, P. Bosch and R. van der Sandt, eds., Working Paper 8, Institute for Logic and Linguistics IBM Deutschland.
Heim, I., 1982, “The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases,” Ph.D. Thesis, University of Massachussetts, Amherst, MA.
Kamp, H. and Reyle, U., 1993, From Discourse to Logic, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Karttunen, L., 1974, “Presupposition and linguistic context,” Theoretical Linguistics 1, 181–194.
Kiparsky P. and Kiparsky, C., 1970, “Fact,” pp. 143–173, in Progress in Linguistics, M. Bierwisch and K.E. Heidolph, eds., The Hague: Mouton.
Lewis, D., 1979, “Scorekeeping in a language game,” Journal of Philosophical Language 8, 339–359.
Prince, E., 1978, “A comparison of Wh-clefts and it-clefts in discourse,” Language 54, 883–906.
Prince, E., 1981, “Toward a taxonomy of given-new information,” pp. 223–255 in Radical Pragmatics, P. Cole, ed., New York, NY: Academic Press.
Stalnaker, R., 1974, “Pragmatic presuppositions,” pp. 197–213 in Semantics and Philosophy, M.K. Munitz and P.K. Unger, eds., New York University.
van der Sandt, R., 1992, “Presupposition projection as anaphor resolution,” Journal of Semantics 19, 333–377.
Zeevat, H., 2002, “Explaining presupposition triggers,” pp. 61–88 in Information Sharing, K. van Deemter and R. Kibble, eds., Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Spenader, J. Factive Presuppositions, Accommodation and Information Structure. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 12, 351–368 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024191513816
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024191513816