Recent years have seen a surge of experimental approaches to the study of natural language meaning, both to obtain solid data on subtle phenomena that are hard to assess through introspection and to understand how abstract characterizations of linguistic knowledge relate to real-time cognitive processes in language comprehension. This article reviews research in one of the most recent areas to see extensive experimental investigations, namely presupposition and presupposition projection. Presuppositions are at the very nexus of linguistically encoded content and contextual information, as they relate directly to the discourse context but also interact in intricate ways with their intra-sentential linguistic environment. They are thus extremely suitable for investigations of the interplay of linguistic and more domain-general processes in language comprehension, as well as for experimental investigations of subtle theoretical phenomena.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


Literature Cited

  1. Abrusán M, Szendrői K. 2013. Experimenting with the king of France: topics, verifiability, and definite descriptions. Semant. Pragmat. 6:1–43 [Google Scholar]
  2. Abusch D. 2002. Lexical alternatives as a source of pragmatic presuppositions. Proceedings of the 12th Semantics and Linguistic Theory Conference (SALT 12) B Jackson. Ithaca, NY: CLC [Google Scholar]
  3. Abusch D. 2010. Presupposition triggering from alternatives. J. Semant. 27:37–80 [Google Scholar]
  4. Amaral P, Cummins C. 2015. A cross-linguistic study on information backgrounding and presupposition projection. Experimental Perspectives on Presuppositions F Schwarz 157–72 Cham, Switz.: Springer Int. [Google Scholar]
  5. Beaver D. 2001. Presupposition and Assertion in Dynamic Semantics Stanford, CA: Cent. Study Lang. Inf.
  6. Beaver D, Geurts B. 2012. Presupposition. Semantics: An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning C Maienborn, K von Heusinger, P Portner 32432–60 Berlin: de Gruyter [Google Scholar]
  7. Beaver D, Krahmer E. 2001. Presupposition and partiality: back to the future. J. Log. Lang. Inform. 10:147–82 [Google Scholar]
  8. Beaver D, Zeevat H. 2007. Accommodation. Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Interfaces G Ramchand, C Reiss 502–38 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  9. Bill C, Romoli J, Schwarz F, Crain S. 2014. Scalar implicatures versus presuppositions: the view from acquisition. Topoi. In press. doi:10.1007/s11245-014-9276-1
  10. Bott L, Noveck IA. 2004. Some utterances are underinformative: the onset and time course of scalar inferences. J. Mem. Lang. 51:437–57 [Google Scholar]
  11. Breheny R, Ferguson HJ, Katsos N. 2013. Investigating the timecourse of accessing conversational implicatures during incremental sentence interpretation. Lang. Cogn. Process. 28:443–67 [Google Scholar]
  12. Burkhardt P. 2006. Inferential bridging relations reveal distinct neural mechanisms: evidence from event-related brain potentials. Brain Lang. 98:159–68 [Google Scholar]
  13. Carlson GN, Tanenhaus M. 1988. Thematic roles and language comprehension. Syntax and Semantics 21 Thematic Relations W Wilkins 263–89 New York: Academic [Google Scholar]
  14. Chambers C, Juan VS. 2005. Accommodation and the interpretation of presupposition during referential processing Presented at Ann. CUNY Conf. Hum. Sentence Process., 18th, Tucson, Ariz.
  15. Chambers CG, Juan VS. 2008. Perception and presupposition in real-time language comprehension: insights from anticipatory processing. Cognition 108:26–50 [Google Scholar]
  16. Chemla E. 2009a. Presuppositions of quantified sentences: experimental data. Nat. Lang. Semant. 17:299–340 [Google Scholar]
  17. Chemla E. 2009b. Similarity: towards a unified account of scalar implicatures, free choice permission and presupposition projection Work. pap., École Norm. Super., Paris
  18. Chemla E, Bott L. 2013. Processing presuppositions: dynamic semantics vs. pragmatic enrichment. Lang. Cogn. Process. 38:241–60 [Google Scholar]
  19. Chemla E, Schlenker P. 2012. Incremental vs. symmetric accounts of presupposition projection: an experimental approach. Nat. Lang. Semant. 20:177–226 [Google Scholar]
  20. Chemla E, Singh R. 2014a. Remarks on the experimental turn in the study of scalar implicature. Part I. Lang. Linguist. Compass 8:373–86 [Google Scholar]
  21. Chemla E, Singh R. 2014b. Remarks on the experimental turn in the study of scalar implicature. Part II. Lang. Linguist. Compass 8:387–99 [Google Scholar]
  22. Chierchia G, McConnell-Ginet S. 1990. Meaning and Grammar: An Introduction to Semantics Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
  23. Clifton CJ. 2013. Situational context affects definiteness preferences: accommodation of presuppositions. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 39:487–501 [Google Scholar]
  24. Cummins C, Amaral P, Katsos N. 2013. Backgrounding and accommodation of presuppositions: an experimental approach. Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 17 E Chemla, V Homer, G Winterstein 201–18 http://semanticsarchive.net/sub2012/CumminsAmaralKatsos.pdf
  25. Degen J, Tanenhaus M. 2015. Availability of alternatives and the processing of scalar implicatures: a visual world eye-tracking study. Cogn. Sci. In press
  26. Destruel E, Onea E, Velleman D, Bumford D, Beaver D. 2015. A cross-linguistic study of the non-at-issueness of exhaustive inferences. Experimental Perspectives on Presuppositions F Schwarz 135–56 Cham, Switz.: Springer Int. [Google Scholar]
  27. Domaneschi F, Carrea E, Penco C, Greco A. 2013. The cognitive load of presupposition triggers: mandatory and optional repairs in presupposition failure. Lang. Cogn. Process. 29:136–46 [Google Scholar]
  28. Dudley R, Orita N, Hacquard V, Lidz J. 2015. Three-year-olds'' understanding of know and think. Experimental Perspectives on Presuppositions F Schwarz 241–62 Cham, Switz.: Springer Int. [Google Scholar]
  29. von Fintel K. 2008. What is presupposition accommodation, again?. Philos. Perspect. 22:137–70 [Google Scholar]
  30. Fox D. 2008. Two short notes on Schlenker's theory of presupposition projection. Theor. Linguist. 34:237–52 [Google Scholar]
  31. Frege G. 1892. On sense and reference. Translations from the Philosophical Writings of Gottlob Frege P Geach, M Black 56–78 Oxford, UK: Blackwell [Google Scholar]
  32. George BR. 2008. Presupposition repairs: a static, trivalent approach to predict projection MA thesis, Dep. Linguist., UCLA 60
  33. Geurts B. 1999. Presuppositions and Pronouns Amsterdam/New York: Elsevier
  34. Geurts B, van Tiel B. 2015. When “all the five circles” are four: new exercises in domain restriction. Topoi In press
  35. Glanzberg M. 2005. Presuppositions, truth values, and expressing propositions. Contextualism in Philosophy: Knowledge, Meaning, and Truth G Preyer, G Peter 349–96 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  36. Grodner DJ, Klein NM, Carbary KM, Tanenhaus MK. 2010. “Some,” and possibly all, scalar inferences are not delayed: evidence for immediate pragmatic enrichment. Cognition 116:42–55 [Google Scholar]
  37. Heim I. 1983. On the projection problem for presuppositions. Proceedings of the 2nd West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL 2) M Barlow, D Flickinger, N Wiegand 114–21 Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. [Google Scholar]
  38. Hirsch A, Hackl M. 2014. Incremental presupposition evaluation in disjunction. Proceedings of the 44th Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society (NELS 44) J Iyer, L Kusmer 177–90 Amherst, MA: Grad. Linguist. Stud. Assoc. [Google Scholar]
  39. Huang Y, Spelke E, Snedeker J. 2013. What exactly do number words mean?. Lang. Learn. Dev. 9:105–29 [Google Scholar]
  40. Huang YT, Snedeker J. 2011. Logic and conversation revisited: evidence for a division between semantic and pragmatic content in real-time language comprehension. Lang. Cogn. Process. 26:1161–72 [Google Scholar]
  41. Jayez J. 2015. Orthogonality and presuppositions. A Bayesian perspective. Bayesian Natural Language Semantics and Pragmatics, Language, Cognition, and Mind 2 H Zeevat, H-C Schmitz 145–78 Cham, Switz: Springer [Google Scholar]
  42. Jayez J, Mongelli V, Reboul A, van der Henst JB. 2015. Weak and strong triggers. Experimental Perspectives on Presuppositions F Schwarz 173–94 Cham, Switz.: Springer Int. [Google Scholar]
  43. Kamp H. 1981. A theory of truth and semantic representation. Proceedings of the 2nd Amsterdam Colloquium J Groenendijk, TM Janssen, M Stokhof 277–322 Amsterdam: Math. Cent.
  44. Karttunen L. 1973. Presuppositions of compound sentences. Linguist. Inq. 4:169–93 [Google Scholar]
  45. Karttunen L. 1974. Presupposition and linguistic context. Theor. Linguist. 1:181–94 [Google Scholar]
  46. Kennedy L, Bill C, Schwarz F, Crain S, Folli R, Romoli J. 2015. Scalar implicatures vs presuppositions: the view from Broca's aphasia. Proceedings of the 40th Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society (NELS 40) S Kan, C Moore-Cantwell, R Staubs Amherst, MA: Grad. Linguist. Stud. Assoc. [Google Scholar]
  47. Kim C. 2008. Processing presupposition: verifying sentences with “only”. Univ. Pa. Work. Pap. Linguist. 14.1213–26
  48. Kim C. 2015. Presupposition satisfaction, locality and discourse constituency. Experimental Perspectives on Presuppositions F Schwarz 109–34 Cham, Switz.: Springer Int. [Google Scholar]
  49. Kleene S. 1952. Introduction to Metamathematics Amsterdam: North-Holland
  50. Kripke S. 2009. Presupposition and anaphora: remarks on the formulation of the projection problem. Linguist. Inq. 40:367–86 [Google Scholar]
  51. Lasersohn P. 1993. Existence presuppositions and background knowledge. J. Semant. 10:113–22 [Google Scholar]
  52. Lewis D. 1979. Scorekeeping in a language game. Semantics from Different Points of View R Bäuerle, U Egli, A von Stechow 172–87 Cham, Switz.: Springer Int. [Google Scholar]
  53. Onea E, Beaver D. 2011. Hungarian focus is not exhausted. Proceedings of the 19th Semantics and Linguistic Theory Conference (SALT 19) E Cormany, S Ito, D Lutz 342–59 Novato, CA: eLanguage [Google Scholar]
  54. Reimer M, Bezuidenhout A. 2004. Descriptions and Beyond Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
  55. Reinhart T. 1981. Pragmatics and linguistics: an analysis of sentence topics. Philosophica 27:53–93 [Google Scholar]
  56. Roberts C. 1989. Modal subordination and pronominal anaphora in discourse. Linguist. Philos. 12:683–721 [Google Scholar]
  57. Roberts C. 1996. Information structure: towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics. Ohio State Univ. Work. Pap. Linguist. 49:91–136 [Google Scholar]
  58. Romoli J. 2015. The presuppositions of soft triggers are obligatory scalar implicatures. J. Semant. 32:173–219 [Google Scholar]
  59. Romoli J, Khan M, Snedeker J, Sudo Y. 2015. Resolving temporary referential ambiguity using presupposed content. Experimental Perspectives on Presuppositions F Schwarz 67–88 Cham, Switz.: Springer Int. [Google Scholar]
  60. Romoli J, Schwarz F. 2015. An experimental comparison between presuppositions and indirect scalar implicatures. Experimental Perspectives on Presuppositions F Schwarz 215–40 Cham, Switz.: Springer Int. [Google Scholar]
  61. Romoli J, Sudo Y, Snedeker J. 2011. An experimental investigation of presupposition projection in conditional sentences. Proceedings of the 21st Semantics and Linguistic Theory Conference (SALT 21) N Ashton, A Chereches, D Lutz 592–608 Ithaca, NY: CLC [Google Scholar]
  62. Russell B. 1905. On denoting. Mind 14:479–93 [Google Scholar]
  63. Schlenker P. 2008a. Be articulate: a pragmatic theory of presupposition projection. Theor. Linguist. 34:157–212 [Google Scholar]
  64. Schlenker P. 2008b. Presupposition projection: explanatory strategies. Theor. Linguist. 34:287–316 [Google Scholar]
  65. Schlenker P. 2009. Local contexts. Semant. Pragmat. 2:1–78 [Google Scholar]
  66. Schwarz F. 2007. Processing presupposed content. J. Semant. 24:373–416 [Google Scholar]
  67. Schwarz F. 2014. Presuppositions are Fast, whether Hard or Soft—evidence from the visual world. Proceedings of the 24th Semantics and Linguistic Theory Conference (SALT 24) T Snider, S D'Antonio, M Weigand 1–24 Ithaca, NY: CLC [Google Scholar]
  68. Schwarz F. 2015a. False but slow: evaluating statements with non-referring definites. J. Semant. In press
  69. Schwarz F. 2015b. Presuppositions vs. asserted content in online processing. Experimental Perspectives on Presuppositions F Schwarz 89–108 Cham, Switz.: Springer Int. [Google Scholar]
  70. Schwarz F. 2015c. Symmetry and incrementality in conditionals. Experimental Perspectives on Presuppositions F Schwarz 195–214 Cham, Switz.: Springer Int. [Google Scholar]
  71. Schwarz F, Tiemann S. 2012. Presupposition processing—the case of german wieder. Proceedings of the 18th Amsterdam Colloquium M Aloni, V Kimmelmann, F Roelofsen, GW Sassoon, K Schulz, M Westera 200–9 Berlin: Springer
  72. Schwarz F, Tiemann S. Presupposition projection in online processing. J. Semant. Forthcoming
  73. Simons M. 2001. On the conversational basis of some presuppositions. Proceedings of the 11th Semantics and Linguistic Theory Conference (SALT 11) R Hastings, B Jackson, Z Zvolenszky 431–48 Ithaca, NY: CLC [Google Scholar]
  74. Singh R, Fedorenko E, Gibson E. 2015. Presupposition accommodation is costly only in implausible contexts. Cogn. Sci. In press. doi:10.1111/cogs.12260
  75. Smith EA, Hall KC. 2011. Projection diversity: experimental evidence. Presented at the Workshop on Projective Meaning, European Summer School of Logic, Language and Information (ESLLI), Ljubljana, Slov
  76. Stalnaker R. 1973. Presuppositions. J. Philos. Log. 2:447–57 [Google Scholar]
  77. Stalnaker R. 1974. Pragmatic presuppositions. Semantics and Philosophy MK Munitz, PK Unger 197–213 New York: NYU Press [Google Scholar]
  78. Strawson PF. 1950. On referring. Mind 59:320–44 [Google Scholar]
  79. Sudo Y. 2012. On the semantics of phi features on pronouns PhD thesis, Dep. Linguist., MIT, Cambridge, MA 260
  80. Syrett K, Koev T, Angelides N, Kramer M. 2015. Experimental evidence for the truth conditional contribution and shifting information status of appositives. J. Semant. 32:525–77 [Google Scholar]
  81. Tanenhaus MK, Spivey-Knowlton MJ, Eberhard KM, Sedivy JC. 1995. Integration of visual and linguistic information in spoken language comprehension. Science 268:1632–34 [Google Scholar]
  82. Tiemann S. 2014. The processing of wieder (‘again’) and other presupposition triggers PhD thesis, Philos. Fak., Eberhard Karls Univ., Tübingen, Ger 198 [Google Scholar]
  83. Tiemann S, Kirsten M, Beck S, Hertrich I, Rolke B. 2015. Presupposition processing and accommodation: an experiment on wieder (‘again’) and consequences for other triggers. Experimental Perspectives on Presuppositions F Schwarz 39–66 Cham, Switz.: Springer Int. [Google Scholar]
  84. Tiemann S, Schmid M, Bade N, Rolke B, Hertrich I. et al. 2011. Psycholinguistic evidence for presuppositions: on-line and off-line data. Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 15 I Reich, E Horch, D Pauly 581–95 Münster, Ger: Monsenstein
  85. Tonhauser J, Beaver D, Roberts C, Simons M. 2013. Towards a taxonomy of projective content. Language 89:66–109 [Google Scholar]
  86. van Berkum JJA, Brown CM, Hagoort P, Zwitserlood P. 2003. Event-related brain potentials reflect discourse-referential ambiguity in spoken language comprehension. Psychophysiology 40:235–48 [Google Scholar]
  87. van der Sandt RA. 1992. Presupposition projection as anaphora resolution. J. Semant. 9:333–77 [Google Scholar]
  88. van Fraasen BC. 1968. Presupposition, implication, and self-reference. J. Philos. 65:136–52 [Google Scholar]
  89. Velleman D, Beaver D, Bumford D, Destruel E, Onea E. 2011. Yes, but…”—exhaustivity and at-issueness across languages Presented at Presupposition, Entailment, Projection and Assertion (PEPA), Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, NJ [Google Scholar]
  90. von Fintel K. 2004. Would you believe it? The king of France is back! Presuppositions and truth-value intuitions. Descriptions and Beyond M Reimer, A Bezuidenhout 315–41 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  91. Zeevat H. 1992. Presupposition and accommodation in update semantics. J. Semant. 9:379–412 [Google Scholar]
  92. Zehr J. 2015. Vagueness, presupposition and truth value judgments PhD thesis, Inst. Jean Nicod, École Norm. Super., Paris 175
  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error