Focus, Evidentiality and Soft Triggers

  • Márta Abrusán
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7218)


Soft triggers are fairly easily suspendable in context. Two main environments in which this happens have been identified: (a) The presupposition of soft triggers can be suspended by focus (cf. Beaver 2004) (b) Simons (2007) has observed that many soft triggers such as hear, see, believe, discover, know, etc. have semantically parenthetical uses which are not presuppositional. This paper offers a way of predicting these facts in the context of a theory applicable to soft triggers.


Event Time Predicate Symbol Embed Clause Matrix Clause Constant Symbol 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Abbott, B.: Where have some of the presuppositions gone? In: Birner, B.J., Ward, G. (eds.) Drawing the Boundaries of Meaning: Neo-Gricean Studies in Pragmatics and Semantics in Honor of Laurence R. Horn, pp. 1–20. John Benjamins, Philadelphia (2006)Google Scholar
  2. Abrusán, M.: Triggering verbal presuppositions. In: Li, N., Lutz, D. (eds.) Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 20, pp. 684–701. eLanguage (2011)Google Scholar
  3. Abrusán, M.: Predicting the Presuppositions of Soft Triggers. Linguistics and Philosophy (to appear, 2012)Google Scholar
  4. Abusch, D.: Presupposition triggering from alternatives. Journal of Semantics 27(1), 37–80 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Beaver, D.: Have you noticed that your belly button lint colour is related to the colour of your clothing? In: Bauerle, R., Reyle, U., Zimmerman, T.E. (eds.) Presupposition: Papers in Honor of Hans Kamp (2004)Google Scholar
  6. Chierchia, G., McConnell-Ginet, S.: Meaning and grammar: an introduction to semantics. MIT Press, Cambridge (2000)Google Scholar
  7. Demolombe, R., Fariñas del Cerro, L.: Towards a logical characterization of sentences of the kind “sentence p is about object c”. In: Holdobler, S. (ed.) Intellectics and Computational Logic: Papers in Honor of Wolfgang Bibel. Kluwer Academic Press (2000)Google Scholar
  8. Goldstein, E.: Sensation and perception. Wadsworth Pub. Co. (2009)Google Scholar
  9. Itti, L., Koch, C.: Computational modeling of visual attention. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 2(3), 194–203 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Karttunen, L.: Implicative verbs. Language 47(2), 340–358 (1971a)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Karttunen, L.: Some Observations on Factivity. Papers in Linguistics 5, 55–69 (1971b)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Keshet, E.: Infinitival Complements. In: Gronn, A. (ed.) Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 12 (2008)Google Scholar
  13. Klinedinst, N.: Totally Hardcore Semantic Presuppositions. ms. UCL (2009)Google Scholar
  14. Kusumoto, K.: On the quantification over times in natural language. Natural Language Semantics 13(4), 317–357 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Navalpakkam, V., Itti, L.: Modeling the influence of task on attention. Vision Research 45(2), 205–231 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Partee, B.H.: Some structural analogies between tenses and pronouns in English. The Journal of Philosophy 70(18), 601–609 (1973)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Romoli, J.: The presuppositions of soft triggers are not presuppositions. Talk presented at SALT 21 (2011)Google Scholar
  18. Simons, M.: On the conversational basis of some presuppositions. In: Hastings, R., Jackson, B., Zvolensky, Z. (eds.) Semantics and Linguistic Theory, 11 (2001)Google Scholar
  19. Simons, M.: Observations on embedding verbs, evidentiality, and presupposition. Lingua 117(6), 1034–1056 (2007)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Simons, M., Tonhauser, J., Beaver, D., Roberts, C.: What projects and why. In: Li, N., Lutz, D. (eds.) Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory 20, pp. 309–327. Ithaca, Cornell (2010)Google Scholar
  21. Sperber, D., Wilson, D.: Ordered entailments: An alternative to presuppositional theories. In: Syntax and Semantics XI: Presupposition, pp. 299–323 (1979)Google Scholar
  22. Stalnaker, R.C.: Pragmatic presuppositions. Semantics and Philosophy, 197–214 (1974)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Márta Abrusán
    • 1
  1. 1.Lichtenberg KollegGeorg–August Universität GöttingenGermany

Personalised recommendations