Accommodation

Beaver, David; Zeevat, Henk

doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199247455.013.0017

Cited by 51 publications

(46 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…the negation of the sub-DRS must not be entailed by the superordinate structure). Beaver & Zeevat 2004 w A B observe that these principles can be seen as a way of partially cashing out Grice's maxim "Be Brief." This analysis suggests that sometimes the best way to satisfy a global constraint is by satisfying a constraint locally.…”

Section: Independent Contributions Of Subordinate Clauses: the Dynamimentioning

confidence: 99%

Dynamic Pragmatics, or. Why We Shouldn't be Afraid of Embedded Implicature

Simons

2015

SALT

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper examines a particular case of embedded pragmatic effect, here dubbed local pragmatic enrichment. I argue that local enrichment is fairly easily accommodated within semantic theories which take content to be structured. Two standard approaches to dynamic semantics, DRT and Heimian CCS, are discussed as candidates. Focusing on cases of local enrichment of disjuncts in clausal disjunctions, I point out that in these cases, local enrichment is driven by global felicity requirements, demonstrating that the local/global distinction is not a simple dichotomy.

show abstract

Section: Independent Contributions Of Subordinate Clauses: the Dynamimentioning

confidence: 99%

Dynamic Pragmatics, or. Why We Shouldn't be Afraid of Embedded Implicature

Simons

2015

SALT

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The question is subtle, because we only claim that presuppositions can marginally be satisfied by the symmetric algorithm; in other words, sentences whose presuppositions are symmetrically but not incrementally satisfied should have an intermediate status. In order to obtain acceptability judgments (as opposed to inferences), we explored the behavior of the presupposition trigger too in French ('aussi'), which has the advantage of making accommodation -and in particular local accommodation -very difficult or impossible (see Beaver and Zeevat 2007 for discussion of why this might be so). This means that when the presupposition of aussi is not satisfied, the resulting sentence is deviant.…”

Section: Symmetric Readingsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Presupposition Projection: the New Debate

Schlenker¹

2008

SALT

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A powerful intuition behind much recent research is that a presupposition must be satisfied in its context of evaluation. The relevant notion of context is, in Stalnaker's terminology (Stalnaker 1978), the 'context set', which encodes what the speech act participants take for granted (we will say 'context' for short). But the simplest version of this analysis faces immediate difficulties with complex sentences: John is incompetent and he knows that he is does not require that the speech act participants already take for granted that John is incompetent, since this proposition is asserted, not presupposed. The dynamic approach solves the problem by postulating that the second conjunct is evaluated with respect to a local context, obtained by updating the global one with the content of the first conjunct; this explains why the presupposition of the second conjunct is in this case automatically satisfied. This analysis is captured by the dynamic rule stated in (1): the update of a context C with a conjunction is the successive update of C with each conjunct.

show abstract

“…It therefore subsumes truth conditions, but also conventional implicature and expressive content, and excludes presupposition, which on normal conceptions functions to structure the discourse or check it against certain communicative expectations. While presupposition can convey new information, it happens through the process of accommodation (Beaver and Zeevat, 2007), which is in a sense a metalevel operation. One diagnostic for narrow content is therefore whether an expression carries (normatively) hearer-new information.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Expressives and Expressivity

McCready

2014

Open Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper considers the questions of translatability and expressive power. It is argued that truthconditional content is always translatable, and does not produce differences in expressive power. Most nontruth-conditional content-presupposition, 'side effects' such as anaphora, and conventional implicature-is shown to not always translate successfully, but still not to produce genuine differences in expressivity. This last property appears to clearly hold only of terms which introduce expressive content: only for such content is genuine incommensurability found in natural language. Some implications of these findings are discussed.

show abstract

Accommodation

Cited by 51 publications

References 0 publications

Dynamic Pragmatics, or. Why We Shouldn't be Afraid of Embedded Implicature

Dynamic Pragmatics, or. Why We Shouldn't be Afraid of Embedded Implicature

Presupposition Projection: the New Debate

Expressives and Expressivity

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About