Processing Presupposed Content

This paper presents three experimental studies investigating the processing of presupposed content. The first two experiments employ the German additive particle auch 'too', and the third uses English also. In experiment 1, participants were given a questionnaire containing biclausal, ambiguous sentences containing auch. The presupposition introduced by auch was only satisfied on one of the two readings, which corresponded to a syntactically dispreferred parse of the sentence. The prospect of having the auch presupposition satisfied made participants choose this syntactically dispreferred reading more frequently than in a control condition. Experiment 2 used the self-paced reading paradigm and compared the reading times on clauses containing auch, which differed in whether the presupposition of auch was satisfied or not. Participants read the clause more slowly when the presupposition was not satisfied. Experiment 3 followed up a number of issues that arose from experiment 2 and confirmed the results found there. These studies show that presuppositions play an important role in online sentence comprehension and affect the choice of syntactic analysis. Some theoretical implications of these findings for the semantic analysis of auch/also and dynamic accounts of presuppositions as well as for theories of semantic processing are discussed.

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

[2]  H. Kamp A Theory of Truth and Semantic Representation , 2008 .

[3]  K. Fintel Would You Believe It? The King of France is Back! (Presuppositions and Truth-Value Intuitions) , 2001 .

[4]  Markus Bader,et al.  Subject-Object Ambiguities in German Embedded Clauses: An Across-the-Board Comparison , 1999 .

[5]  Matthias Schlesewsky,et al.  The Subject Preference in the Processing of Locally Ambiguous WH-Questions in German , 2000 .

[6]  Irene Heim,et al.  On the Projection Problem for Presuppositions , 2008 .

[7]  Irene Heim,et al.  Presupposition Projection and the Semantics of Attitude Verbs , 1992, J. Semant..

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

[9]  B. Geurts Presuppositions and Pronouns , 1999 .

[10]  Irene Heim,et al.  File Change Semantics and the Familiarity Theory of Definiteness , 2008 .

[11]  Robert Stalnaker,et al.  Presuppositions of Compound Sentences , 2008 .

[12]  L. Osterhout,et al.  The independence of combinatory semantic processing: Evidence from event-related potentials , 2005 .

[13]  Uwe Reyle,et al.  From discourse to logic , 1993 .

[14]  J. D. Saddy,et al.  Symbolic dynamics of event-related brain potentials. , 2000, Physical review. E, Statistical physics, plasmas, fluids, and related interdisciplinary topics.

[15]  Manfred Krifka,et al.  Additive Particles under Stress , 1998 .

[16]  Colin M. Brown,et al.  Early referential context effects in sentence processing: Evidence from event-related brain potentials , 1999 .

[17]  David I. Beaver,et al.  Presupposition and partiality: Back to the future , 1998 .

[18]  D. Abusch Triggering from alternative sets and projection of pragmatic presuppositions , 2005 .

[19]  A. Hollingworth,et al.  Thematic Roles Assigned along the Garden Path Linger , 2001, Cognitive Psychology.

[21]  LAURI KARTTUNEN,et al.  PRESUPPOSITION AND LINGUISTIC CONTEXT , 1974 .

[22]  Angela D. Friederici,et al.  Sentence processing: Mechanisms , 2003 .

[23]  Peter Hagoort,et al.  Event-related brain potentials reflect discourse-referential ambiguity in spoken language comprehension. , 2003, Psychophysiology.