@article{Bade2021,
  author    = {Bade, Nadine},
  title     = {On the scope and nature of Maximise Presupposition},
  series = {Language and linguistics compass},
  volume    = {15},
  journal   = {Language and linguistics compass},
  number    = {6},
  publisher = {Wiley-Blackwell},
  address   = {Oxford},
  issn      = {1749-818X},
  doi       = {10.1111/lnc3.12416},
  pages     = {16},
  year      = {2021},
  abstract  = {The paper introduces the principle Maximise Presupposition and its cognates. The main focus of the literature and this article is on the inferences that arise as a result of reasoning with Maximise Presupposition ('anti-presuppositions'). I will review the arguments put forward for distinguishing them from other inference types, most notably presuppositions and conversational implicatures. I will zoom in on three main issues regarding Maximise Presupposition and these inferences critically discussed in the literature: epistemic strength(ening), projection, and the role of alternatives. I will discuss more recent views which argue for either a uniform treatment of anti-presuppositions and implicatures and/or a revision of the original principle in light of new data and developments in pragmatics.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{BadePicatChungetal.2022,
  author    = {Bade, Nadine and Picat, Leo and Chung, WooJin and Mascarenhas, Salvador},
  title     = {Alternatives and attention in language and reasoning: A reply to Mascarenhas \& Picat (2019)},
  series = {Semantics and Pragmatics},
  volume    = {15},
  journal   = {Semantics and Pragmatics},
  publisher = {Linguistic Society of America},
  address   = {Washington},
  issn      = {1937-8912},
  doi       = {10.3765/sp.15.2},
  pages     = {31},
  year      = {2022},
  abstract  = {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.},
  language  = {en}
}