What projects and why

Datos 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)
Año2010
Volumen20
Páginas309
Fecha de publicación2010-08-14
Peer ReviewedSí
Open AccessSí
TipoARTICLE
RevistaProceedings from Semantics and Linguistic Theory (JOURNAL)
Identificadores de la revistaISSN: 2163-5943 • E-ISSN: 2163-5951
EditorialLinguistic Society of America (PUBLISHER • US)
DOI10.3765/salt.v20i0.2584
OpenAlexW1546109633
IdiomaEN
Citas recibidas120
Referencias 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