TY - JOUR A1 - Grubic, Mira A1 - Wierzba, Marta T1 - Presupposition Accommodation of the German Additive Particle auch (= “too”) JF - Frontiers in Communication N2 - Presupposition triggers differ with respect to whether their presupposition is easily accommodatable. The presupposition of focus-sensitive additive particles like also or too is often classified as hard to accommodate, i.e., these triggers are infelicitous if their presupposition is not entailed by the immediate linguistic or non-linguistic context. We tested two competing accounts for the German additive particle auch concerning this requirement: First, that it requires a focus alternative to the whole proposition to be salient, and second, that it merely requires an alternative to the focused constituent (e.g., an individual) to be salient. We conducted two experiments involving felicity judgments as well as questions asking for the truth of the presupposition to be accommodated. Our results suggest that the latter account is too weak: mere previous mention of a potential alternative to the focused constituent is not enough to license the use of auch. However, our results also suggest that the former account is too strong: when an alternative of the focused constituent is prementioned and certain other accommodation-enhancing factors are present, the context does not have to entail the presupposed proposition. We tested the following two potentially accommodation-enhancing factors: First, whether the discourse can be construed to be from the perspective of the individual that the presupposition is about, and second, whether the presupposition is needed to establish coherence between the host sentence of the additive particle and the preceding context. The factor coherence was found to play a significant role. Our results thus corroborate the results of other researchers showing that discourse participants go to great lengths in order to identify a potential presupposition to accommodate, and we contribute to these results by showing that coherence is one of the factors that enhance accommodation. KW - alternatives KW - additive particles KW - presupposition KW - anaphoricity KW - accommodation KW - experimental data KW - German Y1 - 2019 U6 - https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2019.00015 SN - 2297-900X VL - 4 PB - Frontiers Media CY - Lausanne ER - TY - GEN A1 - Grubic, Mira A1 - Wierzba, Marta T1 - Presupposition Accommodation of the German Additive Particle auch (= “too”) T2 - Postprints der Universität Potsdam Humanwissenschaftliche Reihe N2 - Presupposition triggers differ with respect to whether their presupposition is easily accommodatable. The presupposition of focus-sensitive additive particles like also or too is often classified as hard to accommodate, i.e., these triggers are infelicitous if their presupposition is not entailed by the immediate linguistic or non-linguistic context. We tested two competing accounts for the German additive particle auch concerning this requirement: First, that it requires a focus alternative to the whole proposition to be salient, and second, that it merely requires an alternative to the focused constituent (e.g., an individual) to be salient. We conducted two experiments involving felicity judgments as well as questions asking for the truth of the presupposition to be accommodated. Our results suggest that the latter account is too weak: mere previous mention of a potential alternative to the focused constituent is not enough to license the use of auch. However, our results also suggest that the former account is too strong: when an alternative of the focused constituent is prementioned and certain other accommodation-enhancing factors are present, the context does not have to entail the presupposed proposition. We tested the following two potentially accommodation-enhancing factors: First, whether the discourse can be construed to be from the perspective of the individual that the presupposition is about, and second, whether the presupposition is needed to establish coherence between the host sentence of the additive particle and the preceding context. The factor coherence was found to play a significant role. Our results thus corroborate the results of other researchers showing that discourse participants go to great lengths in order to identify a potential presupposition to accommodate, and we contribute to these results by showing that coherence is one of the factors that enhance accommodation. T3 - Zweitveröffentlichungen der Universität Potsdam : Humanwissenschaftliche Reihe - 547 KW - alternatives KW - additive particles KW - presupposition KW - anaphoricity KW - accommodation KW - experimental data KW - German Y1 - 2019 U6 - http://nbn-resolving.de/urn/resolver.pl?urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-428003 SN - 1866-8364 IS - 547 ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Gotzner, Nicole A1 - Spalek, Katharina T1 - Expectations about upcoming discourse referents BT - Effects of pitch accents and focus particles in German language production JF - International review of pragmatics : IRP N2 - In the current study, we explore how different information-structural devices affect which referents conversational partners expect in the upcoming discourse. Our main research question is how pitch accents (H*, L+H*) and focus particles (German nur `only' and auch 'also') affect speakers' choices to mention focused referents, previously mentioned alternatives or new, inferable alternatives. Participants in our experiment were presented with short discourses involving two referents and were asked to orally produce two sentences that continue the story. An analysis of speakers' continuations showed that participants were most likely to mention a contextual alternative in the condition with only and the L+H* conditions, followed by H* conditions. In the condition with also, in turn, participants mentioned both the focused/accented referent and the contextual alternative. Our findings highlight the importance of information structure for discourse management and suggest that speakers take activated alternatives to be relevant for an unfolding discourse. KW - information structure KW - linguistics focus KW - pitch accents KW - focus KW - alternatives KW - discourse expectations Y1 - 2022 U6 - https://doi.org/10.1163/18773109-01401003 SN - 1877-3095 SN - 1877-3109 VL - 14 IS - 1 SP - 77 EP - 94 PB - Brill CY - Leiden ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Gotzner, Nicole A1 - Romoli, Jacopo T1 - Meaning and alternatives JF - Annual review of linguistics N2 - Alternatives and competition in language are pervasive at all levels of linguistic analysis. More specifically, alternatives have been argued to play a prominent role in an ever-growing class of phenomena in the investigation of natural language meaning. In this article, we focus on scalar implicatures, as they are arguably the most paradigmatic case of an alternative-based phenomenon. We first review the main challenge for theories of alternatives, the so-called symmetry problem, and we briefly discuss how it has shaped the different approaches to alternatives. We then turn to two more recent challenges concerning scalar diversity and the inferences of sentences with multiple scalars. Finally, we describe several related alternative-based phenomena and recent conceptual approaches to alternatives. As we discuss, while important progress has been made, much more work is needed both on the theoretical side and on understanding the empirical landscape better. KW - alternatives KW - scalar implicatures KW - symmetry problem KW - focus KW - polarity KW - sensitivity KW - negative strengthening Y1 - 2022 U6 - https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-031220-012013 SN - 2333-9691 SN - 2333-9683 VL - 8 SP - 213 EP - 234 PB - Annual Reviews CY - Palo Alto ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Bade, Nadine A1 - Picat, Leo A1 - Chung, WooJin A1 - Mascarenhas, Salvador T1 - Alternatives and attention in language and reasoning: A reply to Mascarenhas & Picat (2019) JF - Semantics and Pragmatics N2 - In this paper, we employ an experimental paradigm using insights from the psychology of reasoning to investigate the question whether certain modals generate and draw attention to alternatives. The article extends and builds on the methodology and findings of Mascarenhas & Picat (2019). Based on experimental results, they argue that the English epistemic modal might raises alternatives. We apply the same methodology to the English modal allowed to to test different hypotheses regarding the involvement of alternatives in deontic modality. We find commonalities and differences between the two modals we tested. We discuss theoretical consequences for existing semantic analyses of these modals, and argue that reasoning tasks can serve as a diagnostic tool to discover which natural language expressions involve alternatives. KW - reasoning KW - modals KW - alternatives Y1 - 2022 U6 - https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.15.2 SN - 1937-8912 VL - 15 PB - Linguistic Society of America CY - Washington ER -