Parenthesis and presupposition in discourse
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.
References (19)
AnderBois, Scott, Adrian Brasoveanu & Robert Henderson
2013 At-issue proposals and appositive impositions in discourse.
Journal of Semantics 30(4). 1–46.
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.
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.
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.
Heringa, Herman & Mark de Vries
2008 Een semantische classificatie van apposities.
Nederlandse Taalkunde 131. 60–87.
Heringa, Herman
2011 Appositional constructions. PhD dissertation, University of Groningen.
Kehler, Andrew
2002 Coherence, reference, and the theory of grammar. Stanford: CSLI.
Koev, Todor
2013 Apposition and the structure of discourse. PhD thesis, Rutgers University.
Krifka, Manfred
2013 Response particles as propositional anaphors.
Proceedings of SALT 231. 1–18.
Nouwen, Rick
2007 On appositives and dynamic binding.
Research on Language and Computation 5(1). 87–102.
Potts, Christopher
2002 The lexical semantics of parenthetical-as and appositive-which.
Syntax 5(1). 55–88.
Potts, Christopher
2005 The logic of conventional implicatures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Simons, Mandy, Judith Tonhauser, David Beaver & Craige Roberts
2010 What projects and why.
Proceedings of SALT 201. 309–327.
Stalnaker, Robert
1978 Assertion. In
Peter Cole (ed.),
Syntax and Semantics 9: Pragmatics, 315–32. New York: Academic Press.
Wang, Linton, Brian Reese & Eric McCready
2005 The projection problem of nominal appositives.
Snippets 101. 13–14.
Cited by (3)
Cited by 3 other publications
McInnerney, Andrew
2022.
Parenthetical niching: A third‐factor phonosyntactic analysis.
Syntax 25:3
► pp. 379 ff.
Ott, Dennis & Mark de Vries
2016.
Right-dislocation as deletion.
Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 34:2
► pp. 641 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 july 2024. 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.