Cover not available

Article published In: Pragmatics & Cognition
Vol. 22:3 (2014) ► pp.291–308

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
authorization required

Propositional attitudes towards presuppositions

An experimental approach

 | University of Genoa
Published online: 29 September 2016
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.22.3.01dom
According to the Common Ground account proposed by Stalnaker (2002, 2009), speakers involved in a verbal interaction have different propositional attitudes towards presuppositions. In this paper we propose an experimental study aimed at estimating the psychological plausibility of the Stalnakerian model. In particular, the goal of our experiment is to evaluate variations in accepting as appropriate a sentence that triggers a presupposition, where different attitudes are taken towards the presupposition required. The study conducted suggests that if a speaker has the attitude of belief towards the content of a presupposition, she may evaluate an utterance as more appropriate in a shorter time than in cases where she holds an attitude of presumption or of assumption. Therefore, data collected support the psychological soundness of what might be considered the main, but also most debated, theory of presupposition on the market.
References (22)
Camp, C.J., Lachman, J.L., & Lachman, R. (1980). Evidence for direct-access and inferential retrieval in question-answering. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour, 19(5), 583–596. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chemla, E. (2009a). Universal implicatures and free choice effects: Experimental data. Semantics & Pragmatics, 2(2), 1–33. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (2009b). Presuppositions of quantified sentences: Experimental data. Natural Language Semantics, 17(4), 299–340. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chemla, E., & Spector, B. (2011). Experimental evidence for embedded scalar implicatures. Journal of Semantics, 28(3), 359–400. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chemla, E., Homer, V., & Rothschild, D. (2011). Modularity and intuitions in formal semantics: The case of polarity items. Linguistics and Philosophy (in press).Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Collins, A.M., & Loftus, E.F. (1975). A spreading-activation theory of semantic processing. Psychological Review, 82(6), 407–428. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Domaneschi F, (2011). “Towards a normative epistemic account of presuppositions”. in Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 15, pp. 3822–3831, 2011. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (2016b), “Introduction: Presuppositions Philosophy, Linguistics and Psychology”, Topoi, 35:5–8. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Domaneschi F, Carrea E, Penco C and Greco A (2016a) Selecting Presuppositions in Conditional Clauses. Results from a Psycholinguistic Experiment. Front. Psychol. 61:2026. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Domaneschi, F., Carrea, E., Penco, C., & Greco, A. (2014). “The cognitive load of presupposition triggers. Mandatory and optional repairs in presupposition failure. Language and Cognitive Processes, 29(1). .Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gauker, C. (1998). What is a context of utterance?. Philosophical Studies, 911, 149–172. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (2002). Words Without Meaning. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Glanzberg, M. (2003). Felicity and presupposition triggers. Paper presented at the University of Michigan Workshop in Philosophy and Linguistics , Michigan, USA.
Kahneman, D. (2003). A perspective on judgment and choice: Mapping bounded rationality. American Psychologist 58(9): 697–720. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Johnson-Laird, P.N. (1983). Mental Models: Towards a Cognitive Science of Language, Inference, and Consciousness. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Levinson, S.C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Norman, D.A., & Rumelhart, D.E. (1975). Explorations in Cognition. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Russell, Bertrand (1918), “The Philosophy of Logical Atomism”, The Monist, 1918. Reprinted, pp. 177–281 in Logic and Knowledge: Essays 1901–1950, Robert Charles Marsh (ed.), Unwin Hyman, London, UK, 1956. Reprinted, pp. 35–155 in The Philosophy of Logical Atomism, David Pears (ed.), Open Court, La Salle, IL, 1985. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stalnaker, R. (2002). Common ground. Linguistics and Philosophy, 25(5-6), 701–721. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (2009). A response to Abbott on presupposition and common ground. Linguistics and Philosophy, 311, 539–544. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schwarz, F. (2007). Processing presupposed content. Journal of Semantics, 241, 373–416. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tiemann, S., & Schmid, M. et al. (2011). Psycholinguistic evidence for presuppositions: On-line and off-line data. In I. Reich et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of Sinn & Bedeutung 151: 581–595.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Domaneschi, Filippo & Simona Di Paola
2018. The Processing Costs of Presupposition Accommodation. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 47:3 ► pp. 483 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 29 november 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue