Humanities and Arts

Which Presuppositions are Subject to Contextual Felicity Constraints?


  Peer Reviewed

Abstract

Some sentences with presupposition triggers can be felicitously uttered when their presuppositions are not entailed by the context, whereas others are infelicitous in such environments, a phenomenon known as Missing Accommodation / Informative Presupposition or varying Contextual Felicity Constraints (CFCs). Despite an abundance of recent quantitative work on presuppositions, this aspect of their behavior has received less attention via experimentation. Here, we present the results from a semantic rating study testing the relative CFC strength of thirteen presupposition triggers, making this the largest cross-trigger comparison reported in the literature to date. The results support a three-way categorical analysis of presupposition triggers, based on imposing strong, weak, or no CFCs. We observe that strong CFC triggers are all focus-associating, suggesting that (at least some of the) variation in behavior arises due to naturally-occurring semantic classes. We compare our results to three previous proposals for CFC variation and argue that none yet account for the full empirical picture.

Key Questions about Contextual Felicity Constraints and Presupposition Triggers

What are contextual felicity constraints (CFCs), and how do they relate to presupposition triggers?

Contextual felicity constraints refer to the conditions under which presupposition triggers can be felicitously used in a given context. Some presupposition triggers can be used even when their presuppositions are not entailed by the context, while others are infelicitous in such environments. This variation is known as Missing Accommodation or Informative Presupposition.

How does Wilcox's study contribute to understanding CFCs?

Wilcox's study provides empirical data on the relative CFC strength of thirteen presupposition triggers, offering a comprehensive cross-trigger comparison. The results support a three-way categorical analysis of presupposition triggers, based on imposing strong, weak, or no CFCs. This categorization enhances our understanding of how different presupposition triggers behave in various contexts.

What is the significance of focus-associating triggers in this context?

The study observes that strong CFC triggers are all focus-associating, suggesting that variation in behavior arises due to naturally occurring semantic classes. This finding implies that the association with focus may influence the felicity of presupposition triggers in different contexts.

How do Wilcox's findings compare to previous proposals on CFC variation?

Wilcox compares his results to three previous proposals for CFC variation and argues that none yet account for the full empirical picture. This critique highlights the need for a more comprehensive understanding of how presupposition triggers interact with contextual felicity constraints.

By addressing these questions, the article contributes to a deeper understanding of the semantics of presupposition triggers and their interaction with contextual felicity constraints, offering insights that align with recent empirical findings in the field.