Article published in:
Linguistics in the Netherlands 2014
Edited by Anita Auer and Björn Köhnlein
[Linguistics in the Netherlands 31] 2014
► pp. 39–52

Parenthesis and presupposition in discourse

| University of Groningen
Parentheses do not affect the semantic truth conditions of the host clause, but they do affect the discourse structure. We propose a maximally simple update system for the conversational context. Presuppositions are treated as past requests for the interlocutor’s consent. Parentheticals act like overt presuppositions unless they are linearly last in the utterance, in which case they can be taken as a current update request. This has consequences for the interlocutor’s ability to target a parenthetical message. We predict that sentence-final parentheses, and in particular attributive appositives, can be generically addressed, but medial ones only by a specific response. We also discuss why certain non-clausal parentheses, including identifying appositions, behave differently.
Keywords: parenthesis, discourse, presuppositions, Appositions, truth, relative clauses
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at rights@benjamins.nl.

Published online: 10 November 2014
https://doi.org/10.1075/avt.31.04gri
References
AnderBois, Scott, Adrian Brasoveanu & Robert Henderson
2013 At-issue proposals and appositive impositions in discourse. Journal of Semantics 30(4). 1–46. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cardoso, Adriana & Mark de Vries
2010 Internal and external heads in appositive constructions. Manuscript, University of Lisbon & University of Groningen.
Döring, Sandra
2013 Parentheticals are - presumably - CPs. Manuscript, University of Leipzig.
Geurts, Bart
1997 Good news about the description theory of names. Journal of Semantics 141. 319–348. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Grice, Paul
1975 Logic and conversation. In Peter Cole & Jerry L. Morgan (eds.), Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts, 41–58. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Griffiths, James
in prep. Topics in the structure and meaning of parenthesis. PhD dissertation, University of Groningen.
Harris, Jesse & Christopher Potts
2009 Perspective-shifting with appositives and expressives. Linguistics and Philosophy 32(6). 523–552. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Heringa, Herman & Mark de Vries
2008 Een semantische classificatie van apposities. Nederlandse Taalkunde 131. 60–87.Google Scholar
Heringa, Herman
2011 Appositional constructions. PhD dissertation, University of Groningen.Google Scholar
Kehler, Andrew
2002 Coherence, reference, and the theory of grammar. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
Koev, Todor
2013 Apposition and the structure of discourse. PhD thesis, Rutgers University.Google Scholar
Krifka, Manfred
2013 Response particles as propositional anaphors. Proceedings of SALT 231. 1–18. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nouwen, Rick
2007 On appositives and dynamic binding. Research on Language and Computation 5(1). 87–102. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Potts, Christopher
2002 The lexical semantics of parenthetical-as and appositive-which. Syntax 5(1). 55–88. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2005 The logic of conventional implicatures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Simons, Mandy, Judith Tonhauser, David Beaver & Craige Roberts
2010 What projects and why. Proceedings of SALT 201. 309–327. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Stalnaker, Robert
1978 Assertion. In Peter Cole (ed.), Syntax and Semantics 9: Pragmatics, 315–32. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Vries, Mark de
2012 Parenthetical main clauses – or not? On appositives and quasi-relatives. In Lobke Aelbrecht, Liliane Haegeman & Rachel Nye (eds.), Main Clause Phenomena: New Horizons, 177–201. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wang, Linton, Brian Reese & Eric McCready
2005 The projection problem of nominal appositives. Snippets 101. 13–14.Google Scholar

Full-text

Parenthesis and presupposition in discourse
Cited by

Cited by 2 other publications

McInnerney, Andrew
2022. Parenthetical niching: A third‐factor phonosyntactic analysis. Syntax Crossref logo
Ott, Dennis & Mark de Vries
2016. Right-dislocation as deletion. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 34:2 ► pp. 641 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 04 april 2022. 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.