Elamur Research⌕
☰
home / papers / 2024 / Cataphoric resolution of projective content: The case of occasion verbs

Cataphoric resolution of projective content: The case of occasion verbs

Paper · 2024 · Torgrim Solstad and Oliver Bott

Summary

Solstad and Bott study verbs such as thank, criticize and congratulate, which they call occasion verbs. These verbs carry a backgrounded implication: some earlier eventuality gave the agent a reason to act. The authors ask whether this implication behaves like other projective content, such as presuppositions. They also ask whether it can be resolved by material that comes later in the discourse, which goes against the usual assumption that projective content is resolved left to right.

Three rating experiments address these questions. Experiments 1 and 2 adapt the projectivity and at-issueness methods of Tonhauser, Beaver & Degen (2018). A cluster analysis places occasion verbs alongside well-known triggers. Unlike pronouns, demonstratives or too, however, occasion verbs accept a following clause that supplies the missing occasion. Experiment 3 uses conjunctions inside conditional antecedents (the Mandelkern et al. 2020 design). Factive and aspectual triggers filter only left to right, while occasion verbs filter in both directions.

The authors conclude that occasion verbs form a new kind of trigger. They link the cataphoric behaviour to the explanatory (causal) relation between the verb's event and its implication.

Key points

  • The verbs come from the Implicit Causality literature, where they were earlier called "agent-evocator verbs". In prior production studies they draw about 92% object-referring continuations. Without a connective, roughly 60% of continuations are Explanations, compared with about 30% for plain agent-patient verbs like verjagen 'chase away'.
  • In Experiment 1, a following clause supplying the occasion raised ratings for occasion verbs by about 18 points over a neutral baseline. Pronouns showed essentially no cataphoric gain (estimate ≈ 0.6, t ≈ 0.16), and demonstratives showed no reliable gain.
  • In Experiment 2, the comparison triggers were auch 'too' and psych verbs of the stimulus-experiencer and experiencer-stimulus classes. Psych verbs did not pattern with occasion verbs on projectivity and at-issueness. This supports the view that two distinct lexical sources drive coherence and coreference biases.
  • In Experiment 3, the order of the conjuncts barely mattered for occasion verbs (P-last vs. P-first ≈ −2, not significant). For the Mandelkern-style factive and aspectual items, putting P last cost about 30 rating points.
  • The authors model the verb's meaning as a DRT lexical entry with an underspecified, causally linked prior eventuality. All analyses used linear mixed-effects models fit with lme4.

Interesting ideas

  • I1. The occasion implication is treated as an underspecified "empty slot" (a prior cause tied to the object) that readers want filled, and later text can fill it. This makes a lexical entry generate an expectation rather than a fixed fact.
  • I2. Cataphoric resolution is allowed for this content class but not for pronouns or too, which argues for trigger-specific resolution directions rather than one global left-to-right rule.
  • I3. The paper separates two sources of discourse bias (occasion verbs vs. psych verbs) that look alike in continuation data but differ under projectivity tests. Surface statistics alone can merge distinct mechanisms.
  • I4. Each experiment pairs the target trigger with well-understood baseline triggers (pronouns, demonstratives, too, factives) and a neutral context. This gives each effect a calibrated reference point.
  • I5. The conjunction-in-conditional antecedent design tests symmetric vs. asymmetric filtering by simply swapping conjunct order. This is a cheap, controlled probe of order sensitivity.

For Mova

How these ideas could serve Mova, our small open language model — its files, stages and tests:

  • I1 (frames): Verbs like thank/praise/congratulate could open a pending "reason" slot tied to the object participant, to be bound by a later Explanation clause rather than only by earlier context.
  • I2 (world): Mark pending causes in the event world as resolvable forward, so a following sentence like "She had won a race" gets linked as the earlier cause and ordered before the congratulating event.
  • I3 (frames): Coreference and coherence predictors could use verb class as a feature, with separate rules for occasion verbs (object-oriented, projective) and stimulus-experiencer verbs (subject-oriented, non-projective).
  • I4 (learn): Evaluate any new discourse rule against built-in contrast classes that should not show the effect, using them as negative controls for overgeneration.
  • I5 (answer): Build paired test items with swapped clause order to check that readers resolve a cause correctly whether it is mentioned before or after the occasion verb.

Our summary of the paper, in our own words — not its text. The work belongs to its authors; read it at the links above.

 Institutions

🎓Bielefeld UniversityBielefeld · Germany35 works · 1,196 citations

 Fields, topics and concepts

📚 Shelves 5The field of science this work belongs to (OpenAlex fields).Computer Science · 16,667 worksArtificial Intelligence · 16,194 worksArts and Humanities · 16,039 worksLanguage and Linguistics · 15,891 worksPhilosophy · 284 works

Cite

Cite as Torgrim Solstad and Oliver Bott. 2024. Cataphoric resolution of projective content: The case of occasion verbs. Semantics and Pragmatics.

The paper itself, not this page. BibTeX from the library's record of the work. DOI 10.3765/sp.17.11

@article{solstad2024cataphoric,
  title = {{Cataphoric resolution of projective content: The case of occasion verbs}},
  author = {Torgrim Solstad and Oliver Bott},
  journal = {Semantics and Pragmatics},
  year = {2024},
  doi = {10.3765/sp.17.11},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.17.11}
}

References

84 references, 5 of them with a card of ours. ↗ leads to the work, «find» searches for one we have no id for yet.

  1. Abrusán, Márta. 2011. Predicting the presuppositions of soft triggers. Linguistics and Philosophy 34(6). 491–535. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-012-9108-y. ↗
  2. Abrusán, Márta. 2016. Presupposition cancellation: Explaining the ‘soft-hard’ trigger distinction. Natural Language Semantics 24(2). 165–20. https://d oi.org/10.1007/s11050-016-9122-7. ↗
  3. Abusch, Dorit. 2010. Presupposition triggering from alternatives. Journal of Semantics 27(1). 37–80. https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffp009. ↗
  4. Au, Terry Kit-fong. 1986. A verb is worth a thousand words: The causes and consequences of interpersonal events implicit in language. Journal of Memory and Language 25(1). 104–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5 96X(86)90024-0. ↗
  5. Austin, J. L. 1962. How to do things with words. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198245537.001.0001. ↗
  6. Baayen, Rolf Harald, Douglas J. Davidson & Douglas M. Bates. 2008. Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language 59(4): Special issue: Emerging data analysis. 390–412. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2007.12.005. ↗
  7. Bach, Emmon. 1986. The algebra of events. Linguistics and Philosophy 9(1). 5–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00627432. ↗
  8. Baglini, Rebekah & Itamar Francez. 2016. The implications of managing. Journal of Semantics 33(3). 541–560. https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffv007. ↗
  9. Barr, Dale J., Roger Levy, Christoph Scheepers & Harry J. Tily. 2013. Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language 68(3). 255–278. https://doi.org/10.101 6/j.jml.2012.11.001. ↗
  10. Bates, Douglas, Martin Mächler, Ben Bolker & Steve Walker. 2015. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software 67(1). 1– 48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01. ↗
  11. Beaver, David, Craige Roberts, Mandy Simons & Judith Tonhauser. 2017. Questions under discussion: Where information structure meets projective content. Annual Review of Linguistics 3. 265–84. https://doi.org/10.11 46/annurev-linguistics-011516-033952. ↗
  12. Beaver, David & Henk Zeevat. 2007. Accommodation. In Gillian Ramchand & Charles Reiss (eds.), Oxford handbook of linguistic interfaces, 503–538. Ox-Occasion verbs ford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/978019 9247455.013.0017. ↗
  13. Beaver, David I., Bart Geurts & Kristie Denlinger. 2021. Presupposition. In Edward N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy, Spring 2021. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. https://plato.stanf ord.edu/archives/spr2021/entries/presupposition/. ↗
  14. Bolker, Benjamin M., Mollie E. Brooks, Connie J. Clark, Shane W. Geange, John R. Poulsen, M. Henry, H. Stevens & Jada-Simone S. White. 2008. Generalized linear mixed models: A practical guide for ecology and evolution. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 24(3) (3). 127–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2008.10.008. ↗
  15. Bott, Oliver & Torgrim Solstad. 2014. From verbs to discourse: A novel account of implicit causality. In Barbara Hemforth, Barbara Mertins & Cathrine Fabricius-Hansen (eds.), Psycholinguistic approaches to meaning and understanding across languages, 213–251. New York: Springer. https://d oi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-05675-3_9. ↗
  16. Bott, Oliver & Torgrim Solstad. 2021. Discourse expectations: Explaining the implicit causality biases of verbs. Linguistics 59(2). 361–416. https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2021-0007. ↗
  17. Bott, Oliver & Torgrim Solstad. 2022. Cataphoric presupposition verification and symmetric filtering: The case of occasion verbs. Amsterdam Colloquium 23. 397–404. https://pub.uni-bielefeld.de/record/2967761. ↗
  18. Brasoveanu, Adrian & Jakub Dotlačil. 2015. Incremental and predictive interpretation: Experimental evidence and possible accounts. Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 25. 57–81. https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v25i0.30 47. ↗
  19. Brasoveanu, Adrian & Jakub Dotlačil. 2020. Computational cognitive modeling and linguistic theory. Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3 -030-31846-8. ↗
  20. Brasoveanu, Adrian & Anna Szabolcsi. 2013. Presuppositional too, postsup-positional too. In Maria Aloni, Michael Franke & Floris Roelofsen (eds.), The dynamic, inquisitive, and visionary life of 𝜙, ?𝜙, and ⋄𝜙: A festschrift for Jeroen Groenendijk, Martin Stokhof, and Frank Veltman. Amsterdam: ILLC Publications. https://festschriften.illc.uva.nl/Festschrift-JMF/paper s/05_BrasoveanuSzabolsci.pdf. ↗
  21. Brown, Roger & Deborah Fish. 1983. The psychological causality implicit in language. Cognition 14(3). 237–273. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(8 3)90006-9. ↗
  22. Solstad & Bott Chemla, Emmanuel & Philippe Schlenker. 2012. Incremental vs. symmetric accounts of presupposition projection: An experimental approach. Natural Language Semantics 20(2). 177–226. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-012 -9080-7. ↗
  23. Cheung, Candice Chi-Hang & Richard K. Larson. 2015. Psych verbs in English and Mandarin. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 33(1). 127–189. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-014-9259-3. ↗
  24. Chierchia, Gennaro & Sally McConnell-Ginet. 1990. Meaning and grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. find
  25. Crinean, Marcelle & Alan Garnham. 2006. Implicit causality, implicit consequentiality and semantic roles. Language and Cognitive Processes 21(5). 636–648. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960500199763. ↗
  26. Degen, Judith & Judith Tonhauser. 2022. Are there factive predicates? An empirical investigation. Language 98(3). 552–591. https://doi.org/10.135 3/lan.0.0271. ↗
  27. Fabricius-Hansen, Cathrine. 2017. “Loben” und “kritisieren” unter der linguistischen Lupe. In Arne Krause, Gesa Lehmann, Winfried Thielmann & Caroline Trautmann (eds.), Form und Funktion: Festschrift für Angelika Redder zum 65. Geburtstag, 149–166. Tübingen: Stauffenburg Verlag. find
  28. Fabricius-Hansen, Cathrine & Kjell Johan Sæbø. 2011. Behabitive reports. In Elke Brendel, Jörg Meibauer & Markus Steinbach (eds.), Understanding quotation, 85–106. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110240085.85. ↗
  29. Ferstl, Evelyn C., Alan Garnham & Christina Manouilidou. 2011. Implicit causality bias in english: A corpus of 300 verbs. Behavior Research Methods 43(1). 124–135. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-010-0023-2. ↗
  30. Fillmore, Charles J. 1969. Verbs of judging: An exercise in semantic description. Paper in Linguistics 1(1). 91–117. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351816 909389109. von Fintel, Kai. 2008. What is presupposition accommodation, again? Philosophical Perspectives 22(1). 137–170. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1520-8583 .2008.00144.x. ↗
  31. Frederiksen, Anne Therese & Rachel I. Mayberry. 2021. Implicit causality biases and thematic roles in American Sign Language. Behavior Research Methods 53(5). 2172–2190. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-021-01561-1. ↗
  32. Garvey, Catherine & Alfonso Caramazza. 1974. Implicit causality in verbs. Linguistic Inquiry 5(3). 459–464. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4177835. Occasion verbs Gerle, Simone, Johanna Klages, Anke Holler & Thomas Weskott. 2017. Are agent-evocator verbs presupposition triggers? Talk presented at the workshop “Theoretical and Experimental Approaches to Presuppositions” (Genoa, Italy). ↗
  33. Goikoetxea, Edurne, Gema Pascual & Joana Acha. 2008. Normative study of the implicit causality of 100 interpersonal verbs in Spanish. Behavior Research Methods 40(3). 760–772. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.40.3.760. ↗
  34. Hartshorne, Joshua K., Timothy J. O’Donnell & Joshua B. Tenenbaum. 2015. The causes and consequences explicit in verbs. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience 30(6). 716–734. https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2015.100 8524. ↗
  35. Hartshorne, Joshua K. & Jesse Snedeker. 2013. Verb argument structure predicts implicit causality: The advantages of finer-grained semantics. Language and Cognitive Processes 28(10). 1474–1508. https://doi.org/10.108 0/01690965.2012.689305. ↗
  36. Hartshorne, Joshua K., Yasutada Sudo & Miki Uruwashi. 2013. Are implicit causality pronoun resolution biases consistent across languages and cultures? Experimental Psychology 60(3). 179–196. https://doi.org/10.1027/1618-3169/a000187. ↗
  37. Heim, Irene. 1983. On the projection problem for presuppositions. West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL) 2. 114–25. Reprinted as Heim 2002. find
  38. Heim, Irene. 2002. On the projection problem for presuppositions. In Paul Portner & Barbara H. Partee (eds.), Formal Semantics: The essential readings, chap. 10, 249–260. Malden, MA: Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/978 0470758335.ch10. ↗
  39. Hirsch, Aron & Martin Hackl. 2014. Incremental presupposition evaluation in disjunction. North East Linguistic Society (NELS) 44. 177–190. Hofmann, Lisa, Marie-Catherine de Marneffe & Judith Tonhauser. Forthcoming. Projection variation: Is the family of sentences really a family? Sinn und Bedeutung (SuB) 28. find
  40. Horn, Laurence. 2019. First things first: The pragmatics of “natural order”. Intercultural Pragmatics 16(3). 257–287. https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2019-0013. van den Hoven, Emiel & Evelyn C. Ferstl. 2017. Association with explanation-conveying constructions predicts verbs’ implicit causality biases. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 22(4). 521–550. https://doi.org/10 .1075/ijcl.16121.hov. ↗
  41. Solstad & Bott van den Hoven, Emiel & Evelyn C. Ferstl. 2018. Discourse context modulates the effect of implicit causality on rementions. Language and Cognition 10(4). 561–594. https://doi.org/10.1017/langcog.2018.17. ↗
  42. Jayez, Jacques, Valeria Mongelli, Anne Reboul & Jean-Baptiste van der Henst. 2015. Weak and strong triggers. In Florian Schwarz (ed.), Experimental perspectives on presuppositions, 195–213. Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-07980-6_9. ↗
  43. Kalomoiros, Alexandros. 2024. Limited symmetry. In Alexandra Pavlova, Mina Young Pedersen & Raffaella Bernardi (eds.), Selected reflections in language, logic, and information: ESSLLI 2019, ESSLLI 2020 and ESSLLI 2021 student sessions, selected papers, 163–176. Cham: Springer. https://d oi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-50628-4_10. ↗
  44. Kalomoiros, Alexandros & Florian Schwarz. 2021. Presupposition projection from disjunction is symmetric. Proceedings of the Linguistic Society of America 6(1). 556–571. https://doi.org/10.3765/plsa.v6i1.4989. ↗
  45. Kamp, Hans. 2007. Intentions, Plans and their Execution: Turning Objects of Thought into Entities of the External World. Unpublished manuscript. Available at https://www.sfb732.uni-stuttgart.de/documents/files/Kam p_Intentions.pdf. ↗
  46. Kamp, Hans, Josef van Genabith & Uwe Reyle. 2011. Discourse representation theory. In Dov M. Gabbay & Franz Guenthner (eds.), Handbook of philosophical logic, vol. 15, 2nd edn., 125–394. Dordrecht: Springer. https://do i.org/10.1007/978-94-007-0485-5_3. ↗
  47. Karttunen, Lauri. 1971. Some observations on factivity. Paper in Linguistics 4(1). 55–69. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351817109370248. ↗
  48. Karttunen, Lauri. 1974. Presupposition and linguistic context. Theoretical Linguistics 1(1–3). 181–194. https://doi.org/10.1515/thli.1974.1.1-3.181. ↗
  49. Karttunen, Lauri. 2016. Presupposition: What went wrong? Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 26. 705–731. https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v26i0.395 4. ↗
  50. Kehler, Andrew. 2002. Coherence, reference, and the theory of grammar. Stanford: CSLI Publications. find
  51. Kehler, Andrew, Laura Kertz, Hannah Rohde & Jeffrey L. Elman. 2008. Coherence and coreference revisited. Journal of Semantics 25(1). 1–44. https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffm018. ↗
  52. Lagerwerf, Luuk. 1998. Causal connectives have presuppositions: Effects on coherence and discourse structure. the Hague: LOT Publications. https : Occasion verbs //www.lotpublications.nl/causal-connectives-have-presuppositionseffec ts-on-coherence-and-discourse-structure. find
  53. Levinson, Stephen C. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511813313. ↗
  54. Lewis, David. 1979. Scorekeeping in a language game. Journal of Philosophical Logic 8(1). 339–359. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00258436. ↗
  55. Mandelkern, Matthew, Jérémy Zehr, Jacopo Romoli & Florian Schwarz. 2020. We’ve discovered that projection across conjunction is asymmetric (and it is!) Linguistics and Philosophy 43(5). 473–514. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-019-09276-5. de Marneffe, Marie-Catherine, Mandy Simons & Judith Tonhauser. 2019. The CommitmentBank: Investigating projection in naturally occurring discourse. Sinn und Bedeutung (SuB) 23. 107–124. https://doi.org/10.1 8148/sub/2019.v23i2.601. ↗
  56. McCawley, James D. 1975. Verbs of bitching. In Donald J. Hockney, William L. Harper & Bruce Freed (eds.), Contemporary research in philosophical logic and linguistic semantics, 313–332. Dordrecht: Reidel. https://doi.org/10.1 007/978-94-010-1756-5_12. ↗
  57. Nadathur, Prerna. 2023. Causal semantics for implicative verbs. Journal of Semantics 40(2-3). 311–358. https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffad009. ↗
  58. Pickering, Martin J. & Asifa Majid. 2007. What are implicit causality and consequentiality? Language and Cognitive Processes 22(5). 780–788. https : //doi.org/10.1080/01690960601119876. ↗
  59. R Core Team. 2022. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/. ↗
  60. Roberts, Craige. 1996. Information structure in discourse: Towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics, 1998 revision. In Jae Hak Yoon & Andreas Kathol (eds.), Papers in semantics (Working Papers in Linguistics 49). The Ohio State University, Department of Linguistics. A revised version was published in Roberts 2012.
  61. Roberts, Craige. 2012. Information structure in discourse: Towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics. Semantics & Pragmatics 5(6). 1–69. https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.5.6. ↗
  62. Roberts, Craige. 2015. Accommodation in a language game. In Barry Loewer & Jonathan Schaffer (eds.), A companion to David Lewis, 345–366. Malden, MA: Wiley Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118398593.ch22. ↗
  63. Solstad & Bott Rothschild, Daniel. 2008. Presupposition projection and logical equivalence. Philosophical Perspectives 22. 473–497. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1520-85 83.2008.00154.x. ↗
  64. Rudolph, Udo & Friedrich Försterling. 1997. The psychological causality implicit in verbs: A review. Psychological Bulletin 121. 192–218. https://doi.org/10.1037//0033-2909.121.2.192. ↗
  65. Schlenker, Philippe. 2008. Be articulate: A pragmatic theory of presupposition projection. Theoretical Linguistics 34(3). https://doi.org/10.1515/thli .2008.013. ↗
  66. Schlenker, Philippe. 2009. Local contexts. Semantics and Pragmatics 2(3). 1– 78. https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.2.3. ↗
  67. Schlenker, Philippe. 2010. Presuppositions and local contexts. Mind 119(474). 377–391. https://doi.org/10.1093/mind/fzq032. ↗
  68. Schwarz, Florian. 2019. Presuppositions, projection, and accommodation. In Chris Cummins & Napoleon Katsos (eds.), The Oxford handbook of experimental semantics and pragmatics, 83–113. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198791768.013.26. ↗
  69. Sieker, Judith. 2022. Projective variability of factive and semifactive verbs? An experimental investigation on the influence of the family of sentences contexts on projectivity. Bielefeld: Bielefeld University MA thesis. find
  70. Sieker, Judith & Torgrim Solstad. 2022. Projective variability of (semi)factive verbs in family of sentence contexts: A rating study. Amsterdam Colloquium 23. Marco Degano, Tom Roberts, Giorgio Sbardolini & Marieke Schouwstra (eds.). 282–289. https://www.dropbox.com/s/xfcdzpc7xhdq awc/Proceedings2022-pages-289-296.pdf?dl=0. ↗
  71. Simner, Julia & Martin J. Pickering. 2005. Planning causes and consequences in discourse. Journal of Memory and Language 52(2). 226–239. https://d oi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2004.04.006. ↗
  72. Simons, Mandy, Judith Tonhauser, David Beaver & Craige Roberts. 2010. What projects and why. Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 20. 309–327. https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v20i0.2584. ↗
  73. Smith, E. Allyn & Kathleen Curry Hall. 2014. The relationship between projection and embedding environment. Chicago Linguistics Society (CLS) 48. 563–578. find
  74. Solstad, Torgrim. 2010. Some new observations on “because (of)”. In Maria Aloni, Harald Bastiaanse, Tikitu de Jager & Katrin Schulz (eds.), Logic, language and meaning: 17th Amsterdam Colloquium, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, December 16-18, 2009, Revised selected papers (Lecture Notes in Occasion verbs Computer Science (LNCS) 6042), 436–445. Berlin: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-14287-1_44. ↗
  75. Solstad, Torgrim & Oliver Bott. 2013. Towards a formal theory of explanatory biases in discourse. Amsterdam Colloquium 19. Maria Aloni, Michael Franke & Floris Roelofsen (eds.). 203–210. https://archive.illc . uva . nl /AC/AC2013/uploaded_files/inlineitem/26_Solstad_Bott.pdf. ↗
  76. Solstad, Torgrim & Oliver Bott. 2022. On the nature of implicit causality and consequentiality: The case of psychological verbs. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience 37(10). 1311–1340. https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2 022.2069277. ↗
  77. Solstad, Torgrim & Oliver Bott. 2023. Implicit causality and consequentiality of action verbs. Frontiers in Language Sciences 2(1143214). https://doi.org/10.3389/flang.2023.1143214. ↗
  78. Spenader, Jennifer. 2003. Factive presuppositions, accommodation and information structure. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 12(3). 351–368. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024191513816. ↗
  79. Stalnaker, Robert C. 1974. Pragmatic presuppositions. In Milton K. Munitz & Peter Unger (eds.), Semantics and philosophy, 197–213. New York: New York University Press. find
  80. Stalnaker, Robert C. 1978. Assertion. In Peter Cole (ed.), Pragmatics (Syntax and Semantics 9), 315–322. New York: Academic Press. https://doi.org/1 0.1163/9789004368873_013. ↗
  81. Tonhauser, Judith, David I. Beaver & Judith Degen. 2018. How projective is projective content? Gradience in projectivity and at-issueness. Journal of Semantics 35(3). 495–542. https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffy007. ↗
  82. Tonhauser, Judith, David I. Beaver, Craige Roberts & Mandy Simons. 2013. Toward a taxonomy of projective content. Language 89(1). 66–109. https ://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2013.0001. ↗
  83. Tversky, Amos & Daniel Kahneman. 1982. Causal schemas in judgements under uncertainty. In Daniel Kahneman, Paul Slovic & Amos Tversky (eds.), Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases, 117–128. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO978051180947 7.009. ↗
  84. Xue, Jingyang & Edgar Onea. 2011. Projection diversity: Experimental evidence. In Gregory Kierstead (ed.), ESSLLI 2011 workshop on projective content. Columbus, OH, USA: The Ohio State University. Solstad & Bott Torgrim Solstad Universität Bielefeld Universitätsstraße 25 33615 Bielefeld torgrim.solstad@uni-bielefeld.de Oliver Bott Universität Bielefeld Universitätsstraße 25 33615 Bielefeld oliver.bott@uni-bielefeld.de find

Updated

↑ back to top

This page in Markdown → https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/solstad-2024-cataphoric-resolution-projective-content-case/