Evaluative adjective sentences: A question-based analysis of projection

Two contents of evaluative adjective sentences, like Kim was smart to watch the movie, are the prejacent (that Kim watched the movie) and the generalization (that the degree to which Kim watching the movie is smart was higher than the contextual standard of smart). The prejacent is standardly analyzed as a presupposition (e.g., Norrick 1978; Barker 2002; Oshima 2009; Kertz 2010). This paper argues against such analyses of the prejacent because, among other things, they do not capture an interaction between the prejacent and the generalization that has not yet been observed for projective content: when the prejacent projects, the generalization does not, and when the prejacent does not project, the generalization does. We develop an analysis according to which the prejacent is not a lexically specified presupposition but is projective to the extent that it is not at-issue with respect to the question addressed by the utterance of the evaluative adjective sentence. In addition to capturing the interaction between the prejacent and the generalization, our question-based projection analysis extends previous such analyses (e.g., Beaver & Clark 2008; Beaver et al. 2017; Simons et al. 2017) by incorporating a novel constraint on the question addressed by an utterance: the more the interpreter takes the truth of content c to follow from the common ground a priori, the less likely the question is about c. We provide experimental evidence for the analysis and argue that it improves on that of Karttunen et al. (2014), according to which evaluative adjectives are ambiguous.

[1]  Chris Cummins,et al.  Evoking Context with Contrastive Stress: Effects on Pragmatic Enrichment , 2015, Front. Psychol..

[2]  Craige Roberts Information structure in discourse: Towards an integrated for-mal theory of pragmatics , 1996 .

[3]  V. Hacquard,et al.  Embedding epistemic modals in English: A corpus-based study , 2012 .

[4]  Rob A. van der Sandt,et al.  Presupposition Projection as Anaphora Resolution , 1992, J. Semant..

[5]  Pranav Anand,et al.  Factivity, Belief and Discourse ⇤ , 2014 .

[6]  B. Abbott Presuppositions as nonassertions , 2000 .

[7]  B. Dahn Foundations of Probability theory, statistical inference, and statistical theories of science , 1978 .

[8]  Judith Tonhauser,et al.  The CommitmentBank: Investigating projection in naturally occurring discourse , 2019 .

[9]  Lauri Karttunen,et al.  You Will Be Lucky To Break Even , 2013 .

[10]  Kajsa Djärv,et al.  Prosodic effects on factive presupposition projection , 2017, Journal of Pragmatics.

[11]  Paul-Christian Bürkner,et al.  brms: An R Package for Bayesian Multilevel Models Using Stan , 2017 .

[12]  Does at-issueness predict projection ? It ’ s complicated ! , 2018 .

[13]  A. Zaenen,et al.  The Chameleon-like Nature of Evaluative Adjectives , 2014 .

[14]  Jacopo Romoli,et al.  The Presuppositions of Soft Triggers are Obligatory Scalar Implicatures , 2015, J. Semant..

[15]  Márta Abrusán,et al.  A Note on Quasi-Presuppositions and Focus , 2013, J. Semant..

[16]  C. Barker The Dynamics of Vagueness , 2002 .

[17]  Shravan Vasishth,et al.  Statistical Methods for Linguistic Research: Foundational Ideas - Part I , 2016, Lang. Linguistics Compass.

[18]  Christopher Potts The logic of conventional implicatures , 2004 .

[19]  David I. Beaver,et al.  Questions Under Discussion: Where Information Structure Meets Projective Content , 2017 .

[20]  R Core Team,et al.  R: A language and environment for statistical computing. , 2014 .

[21]  Brian Winston,et al.  Fact , 2020, The Roots of Fake News.

[22]  H. Savin,et al.  The projection problem for presuppositions , 1971 .

[23]  D. Fox Cancelling the Maxim of Quantity: Another challenge for a Gricean theory of Scalar Implicatures , 2014 .

[24]  K. Fintel What is Presupposition Accommodation, Again? , 2008 .

[25]  E. Allyn Smith,et al.  Review of The Logic of Conventional Implicatures by Chris Potts , 2007 .

[26]  Craige Roberts,et al.  Toward a Taxonomy of Projective Content , 2013 .

[27]  Assertion , 2008, Practices of Reason.

[28]  Gerald Gazdar,et al.  A solution to the projection problem , 1979 .

[29]  Philippe Schlenker,et al.  Local contexts and local meanings , 2010 .

[30]  Marie-Catherine de Marneffe,et al.  On the information structure sensitivity of projective content , 2019 .

[31]  Judith Tonhauser,et al.  Diagnosing (not-)at-issue content , 2011 .

[32]  Shravan Vasishth,et al.  Statistical Methods for Linguistic Research: Foundational Ideas - Part I , 2016, Lang. Linguistics Compass.

[33]  Jeroen Groenendijk,et al.  The Logic of Interrogation (classical version) , 1999 .

[34]  Jeffrey N. Rouder,et al.  The fallacy of placing confidence in confidence intervals , 2015, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[35]  Márta Abrusán,et al.  Predicting the presuppositions of soft triggers , 2011 .

[36]  Laura Kertz The argument structure of evaluative adjectives: A case of pseudo-raising , 2010 .

[37]  Adrian Brasoveanu,et al.  At-issue Proposals and Appositive Impositions in Discourse , 2015, J. Semant..

[38]  Irene Heim,et al.  The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases : a dissertation , 1982 .

[39]  David I. Beaver Presupposition and Assertion in Dynamic Semantics , 2001 .

[40]  David I. Beaver,et al.  Sense and Sensitivity: How Focus Determines Meaning , 2008 .

[41]  Mandy Simons,et al.  On the Conversational Basis of Some Presuppositions , 2013 .

[42]  Judith Tonhauser Projection variability in Paraguayan Guaraní , 2019, Natural Language & Linguistic Theory.

[43]  Jon Stevens,et al.  Rational use of prosody predicts projection in manner adverb utterances , 2017, CogSci.

[44]  David I. Beaver,et al.  The Best Question: Explaining the Projection Behavior of Factives , 2017 .

[45]  David I. Beaver,et al.  What projects and why , 2010 .

[46]  Judith Degen,et al.  How Projective is Projective Content? Gradience in Projectivity and At-issueness , 2018, J. Semant..

[47]  David I. Beaver,et al.  A Cross-Linguistic Study of the Non-at-issueness of Exhaustive Inferences , 2015 .

[48]  Todor Koev,et al.  Experimental Evidence for the Truth Conditional Contribution and Shifting Information Status of Appositives , 2015, J. Semant..

[49]  Tracy Holloway King,et al.  From Quirky Case to Representing Space: Papers in Honor of Annie Zaenen , 2013 .

[50]  Lifeng Lin,et al.  Performing Arm-Based Network Meta-Analysis in R with the pcnetmeta Package. , 2017, Journal of statistical software.

[51]  Mandy Simons,et al.  Observations on embedding verbs, evidentiality, and presupposition , 2007 .

[52]  E. Jaynes,et al.  Confidence Intervals vs Bayesian Intervals , 1976 .

[53]  Lauri Karttunen,et al.  Some observations on factivity , 1971 .

[54]  Neal R. Norrick,et al.  Factive adjectives and the theory of factivity , 1978 .

[55]  David Y. Oshima Between being wise and acting wise: A hidden conditional in some constructions with propensity adjectives1 , 2009, Journal of Linguistics.

[56]  Robert Stalnaker Context and content : essays on intentionality in speech and thought , 1999 .

[57]  Dorit Abusch,et al.  Presupposition Triggering from Alternatives , 2010, J. Semant..

[58]  Sarah E. Murray Varieties of update , 2014 .

[59]  Judith Tonhauser,et al.  Prosodic cues to presupposition projection , 2016 .

[60]  Dorit Abusch,et al.  Lexical Alternatives as a Source of Pragmatic Presuppositions , 2002 .

[61]  Márta Abrusán,et al.  Presupposition cancellation: explaining the ‘soft–hard’ trigger distinction , 2016 .