What projects and why

Dados Bibliográficos

ID23314552
AutoresMandy Simons (0000-0001-6260-6102, Carnegie Mellon University), Judith Tonhauser (0000-0002-6061-7120, The Ohio State University), Dan Beaver (0000-0003-1859-4786, The University of Texas at Austin), David Beaver, Craige Roberts (0000-0001-5107-7962, The Ohio State University)
Ano2010
Volume20
Páginas309
Data de publicação2010-08-14
Peer ReviewedSim
Open AccessSim
TipoARTICLE
PeriódicoProceedings from Semantics and Linguistic Theory (JOURNAL)
Identificadores do periódicoISSN: 2163-5943 • E-ISSN: 2163-5951
EditoraLinguistic Society of America (PUBLISHER • US)
DOI10.3765/salt.v20i0.2584
OpenAlexW1546109633
IdiomaEN
Citações recebidas120
Referências citadas14

Projection is widely used as a diagnostic for presupposition, but many expression types yield projection even though they do not have standard properties of presupposition, for example appositives, expressives, and honorifics (Potts 2005). While it is possible to analyze projection piecemeal, clearly a unitary explanation is to be preferred. Yet we show that standard explanations of projective behavior (common ground based theories, anaphoric theories, and multi-dimensional theories) do not extend to the full range of triggers. Instead, we propose an alternative explanation based on the following claim: Meanings project IFF they are not at-issue, where at-issueness is defined in terms of the Roberts' (1995) discourse theory. Thus, and despite their apparent heterogeneity, projective meaning triggers emerge as a natural class on the basis of the not at-issue status of their projective inference.

Algorithm · Class (philosophy) · Epistemology · Inference · Linguistics · Meaning (existential) · Presupposition · Projection (relational algebra) · Projective test · Pure mathematics · Unitary state · Linguistics and Discourse Analysis · Mathematics · Natural Language Processing Techniques · Philosophy · Syntax, Semantics, Linguistic Variation