Presupposition Processing and Accommodation: An Experiment on wieder (‘again’) and Consequences for Other Triggers

Tiemann, Sonja; Kirsten, Mareike; Beck, Sigrid; Hertrich, Ingo; Rolke, Bettina

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-07980-6_2

Cited by 21 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Although theoretical discussions of presuppositions have gone on for decades, it is only recently that language researchers have begun to investigate the on-line processing of presuppositions (e.g., Chemla & Bott, 2013;Schwarz, 2007; Singh et al., in press;Tiemann et al, 2015). For example, some self-paced reading studies showed that presuppositions are available rapidly to the comprehenders (Tiemann et al, 2011Schwarz, 2007).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Processing temporal presuppositions: an event-related potential study

Jouravlev¹,

Stearns

Bergen³

et al. 2016

Language, Cognition and Neuroscience

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The ability to efficiently process presuppositions, which contain information that the speaker believes to be in the background to the conversation, is essential for effective communication. To get a deeper understanding of the nature and the time-course of temporal presupposition processing, we examined event-related potential (ERPs) evoked by the word again in two types of sentence contexts. The word again was presented in contexts that supported a presupposition (e.g., Jake had tipped a maid at the hotel once before. Today he tipped a maid at the hotel again…) or violated it (e.g., Jake had never tipped a maid at the hotel before. Today he tipped a maid at the hotel again…). The presupposition violation was associated with increased amplitudes of the P3b/P600 but not the N400 component. We argue for the centrality of the P3b/P600 component for presupposition processing. These findings demonstrate rapid integration of lexical presuppositions with contextual knowledge.Keywords: temporal presupposition, ERPs, P3b/ P600, N400, presupposition violation 3 IntroductionNatural language is highly adaptive: the very same message can be used to convey many distinct meanings depending on the communicative context. This context-sensitivity is one of the defining characteristics of language. One important way in which communicative contexts differ is with respect to what information is already shared among the participants in a conversation. Consider the use of the definite determiner the in sentence (1).(1) Mary saw the tiger.Which tiger Mary saw is highly context-dependent. For example, if we are at a zoo, then this sentence will likely convey that Mary saw the tiger at the zoo. In contrast, if a tiger is on the loose in town, then the sentence will likely convey that Mary saw that tiger.Critically, however, the determiner the in (1) carries the presupposition that there exists a unique tiger in the context. If there is more than one salient tiger in the context, or no tigers at all, then the sentence cannot be felicitously used, and its presupposition will have been violated. More generally, presuppositions impose requirements on the conversational context. If a sentence carries a presupposition, then it will only be felicitous if the context satisfies that presupposition (Caffi, 2006;Heim, 1983;1992; Kamp, 2008; Katz, 1973;Simons, 2006; Van Der Sandt, 1992).Presuppositions are "triggered" by a distinct class of words, referred to as presupposition triggers. In English, the words the, stop, and again, among others, act as presupposition triggers. These words signal the presence of shared background knowledge. For example, in (2), the trigger word stop asserts that the action of smoking was terminated at a certain time point and presupposes that the action has taken place 4 before that point.(2) John stopped smoking last year.In (3), the sentence asserts that the action of tipping occurred at certain time point, and the word again presupposes that this action was also performed on a previous occasion.(3) Jake t...

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Processing temporal presuppositions: an event-related potential study

Jouravlev¹,

Stearns

Bergen³

et al. 2016

Language, Cognition and Neuroscience

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We use a picture matching task to assess what role the relevant presuppositions play in subjects' considerations, using response choice, response times and subsequent confidence ratings. The results provide evidence against the view that accommodation is avoided altogether whenever possible, (contra Domaneschi et al 2014;Tiemann 2014;Tiemann et al 2015), while lending some support to the notion that triggers do differ with respect to the availability (and confidence in the result) of accommodation. Furthermore, we find clear differences between presupposed and asserted content, providing further behavioral support for the cognitive reality of the fundamental and underlying theoretical distinction.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 73%

“…In contrast, sentences containing strong triggers, associated with obligatory repair, cannot lead to any update of the Common Ground independently of the presupposition. This and related considerations have been subject to experimental investigations, in particular by Domaneschi et al (2014), with related results and discussion by Tiemann (2014) and Tiemann et al (2015), to which we turn next. Domaneschi et al (2014) explicitly base their experiment on Glanzberg's distinction, and aim to evaluate "whether different categories of triggers lead to either optional or mandatory processing of the information conveyed by the presuppositions required" (p. 1).…”

Section: Obligatory Vs Optional Accommodationmentioning

confidence: 88%

“…In particular, Tiemann (2014) and Tiemann et al (2015) argue based on experimental data that the presupposition of again is effectively ignored when its context does not support it. Similarly, Domaneschi et al (2014), building on Glanzberg (2005), distinguish between weak and strong presupposition triggers, which differ in whether accommodation is optional or obligatory, respectively, and present experimental data which is argued to support this distinction.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Their findings are consistent with a distinction between triggers along these lines, as weak triggers such as focus sensitive particles (even) and iteratives (re-) yield lower accuracy (roughly 50-60%) than strong triggers such as change of state verbs (give up) and factive verbs (explain) (mostly around 80% or higher). The second highly relevant experimental finding, from Tiemann (2014) (also discussed in Tiemann et al 2015), concerns subjects' answers to questions pertaining directly to the presupposition of again, which were part of a self-paced reading study on its German counter-part wieder. Subjects saw (German) versions of sentences and subsequent questions such as the following:…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

To accommodate or to ignore?: The presuppositions of <i>again</i> and <i>continue</i> across contexts

Bacovcin

Zehr

Schwarz

2018

Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

One central question in presupposition theory concerns the effect of using a presupposition trigger in a context where its presupposition is not supported. We test the predictions of recent accounts based on the idea that presuppositions of certain triggers, such as again, can be ignored entirely in such circumstances. We sketch two possible alternative accounts wherein presuppositions cannot be ignored and provide experimental results suggesting that presupposed content is fully considered for all triggers across contexts. Specifically, we find that presupposition accommodation does takes place when not strictly necessary for the task at hand. We also find some indications of differences between triggers, which are consistent with our alternative accounts.

show abstract

Introduction: Presuppositions in Context—Theoretical Issues and Experimental Perspectives

Schwarz

2014

Studies in Theoretical Psycholinguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Presupposition Processing and Accommodation: An Experiment on wieder (‘again’) and Consequences for Other Triggers

Cited by 21 publications

References 19 publications

Processing temporal presuppositions: an event-related potential study

Processing temporal presuppositions: an event-related potential study

To accommodate or to ignore?: The presuppositions of <i>again</i> and <i>continue</i> across contexts

Introduction: Presuppositions in Context—Theoretical Issues and Experimental Perspectives

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About