A cross-linguistic view on the obligatory insertion of additive particles — Maximize Presupposition vs. Obligatory Implicatures

Bade, Nadine; Renans, Agata

doi:10.5334/gjgl.727

Cited by 4 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 44 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The claim that additive marking is optional in (33-b)-(33-d) is supported by experimental data (Bade, 2016;Bade & Renans, 2021;Bade & Tiemann, 2016). Another empirical observation is that the obligatory insertion of 'too' depends on several discourse factors, including enumeration structures , reduction/ellipsis (Amsili et al, 2015), text type (Eckardt & Fränkel, 2012) and clefts/contrast (Bade, 2016;Bade & Renans, 2021). Bade's focus exhaustivity based analysis derives these discourse effects from the relation of focus to exhaustivity more generally.…”

Section: Grammatical Theories Of Implicatures and Mpmentioning

confidence: 80%

“…Adding further complexity to the issue is the fact that not all presuppositions behave alike when it comes to the structural and contextual conditions for obligatory insertion (Bade, 2016;Bade & Renans, 2021;Bade & Tiemann, 2016). Specifically, the projection behaviour of MP!based inferences has been shown to not extend to all triggers.…”

Section: Summary and Open Issuesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

On the scope and nature ofMaximise Presupposition

Bade

2021

Language and Linguist. Compass

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The paper introduces the principle Maximise Presupposition and its cognates. The main focus of the literature and this article is on the inferences that arise as a result of reasoning with Maximise Presupposition (‘anti‐presuppositions’). I will review the arguments put forward for distinguishing them from other inference types, most notably presuppositions and conversational implicatures. I will zoom in on three main issues regarding Maximise Presupposition and these inferences critically discussed in the literature: epistemic strength(ening), projection, and the role of alternatives. I will discuss more recent views which argue for either a uniform treatment of anti‐presuppositions and implicatures and/or a revision of the original principle in light of new data and developments in pragmatics.

show abstract

Section: Grammatical Theories Of Implicatures and Mpmentioning

confidence: 80%

Section: Summary and Open Issuesmentioning

confidence: 99%

On the scope and nature ofMaximise Presupposition

Bade

2021

Language and Linguist. Compass

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Percus 2006), an implicature-related account (cf. Krifka 1999;Saebø 2004;Bade 2016;Aravind & Hackl 2017), and an account related to a discourse similarity function (cf. Kaplan 1984;Amsili & Beyssade 2010;Winterstein 2011;Winterstein & Zeevat 2012;Amsili et al 2016).…”

Section: Two Factors Affecting the Readings Of Chinese Adverbial Zijimentioning

confidence: 99%

A unified semantic analysis of Chinese adverbialziji

Liao¹

2021

LALI

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study of Chinese adverbial ziji investigates why cross-linguistically adverbial intensifiers often develop two different uses, namely the exclusive use and the inclusive use. Arguing against the polysemous account proposed in previous works like Siemund (2000), and assuming the mechanism suggested in Liao (2018) for exclusive ziji, the paper presents a new analysis revised from Gast’s (2006) account for intensifiers. In the analysis, there is only one ziji for all its adverbial uses. By adjoining to different X’ positions in the structure, adverbial ziji may get different surface meanings. Despite the surface differences, adverbial ziji always has the following semantics: it works as an identity function, evokes alternatives for consideration, and receives an exclusive meaning after the application of the covert exhaustivity operator O. Based on the evidence presented, the analysis crucially assumes that adverbial ziji may adjoin to Topic’, and this adjunction leads to the effect that the subsequent exhaustification is done over a set of alternative propositions that vary in topics. In such a case, alternative individuals evoked by ziji do not have to be excluded from having the property described by the VP in question. This makes the assertion of a ziji-sentence in inclusive context possible, and accounts for why intensifier ziji has a disguised inclusive function. By proposing such a unified account of ziji, the paper explains why cross-linguistically intensifiers often develop the various uses observed.

show abstract

Intonational Commitments

Rudin

2022

Journal of Semantics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper presents an analysis of inquisitive rising declaratives (Gunlogson 2001, Jeong 2018) within the Table model (Farkas & Bruce 2010). On this account, intonational tunes are modifiers of context update functions: rising intonation removes the speaker commitment component of a context update. This delivers a compositional account of the contributions of sentence type and intonational tune to the illocutionary mood of an utterance, showing how the semantic type of declarative sentences, the rising intonational tune, and a general-purpose utterance function (Farkas & Roelofsen 2017) conspire to derive the basic discourse effect of rising declaratives without any construction-specific stipulations. The account makes use of only the most fundamental representational primitives independently necessary to model assertions and neutral questions, showing that rising declaratives can be accounted for without recourse to projected commitments, metalinguistic issues, or explicit marking of commitment strength, evidence source, or epistemic bias (cf. Gunlogson 2008, Northrup 2014, Malamud & Stephenson 2015, Farkas & Roelofsen 2017). Inferences of bias generated by rising declaratives are accounted for with a novel pragmatics for the Table model, formalizing what is implicit in discussions of the role played in the model by speaker commitments and projected Common Grounds.

show abstract

A cross-linguistic view on the obligatory insertion of additive particles — Maximize Presupposition vs. Obligatory Implicatures

Cited by 4 publications

References 44 publications

On the scope and nature ofMaximise Presupposition

On the scope and nature ofMaximise Presupposition

A unified semantic analysis of Chinese adverbialziji

Intonational Commitments

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About