The Best Question: Explaining the Projection Behavior of Factives

References

• Abrusán, M. (2011). Predicting the presuppositions of soft triggers. Linguistics and Philosophy, 34, 491–535.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Abusch, Dorit. (2002). Lexical alternatives as a source of pragmatic presuppositions. In B. Jackson (Ed.), Proceedings of SALT 22 (pp. 1–19). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.
   Google Scholar
• Abusch, D. (2009). Presupposition triggering from alternatives. Journal of Semantics, 27, 37–80.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Atlas, J. D. (2005). Logic, meaning and conversation: semantical underdeterminacy, implicature and their interface. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Beaver, D. (2010). Have you noticed that your belly button lint colour is related to the colour of your clothing? In R. Bauerle, U. Reyle, & T. E. Zimmermann (Eds.), Presuppositions and discourse: essays offered to Hans Kamp (pp. 65–99). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
   Google Scholar
• Beaver, D., & Clark, B. (2008). Sense and sensitivity: how focus determines meaning. Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Boër, S., & Lycan, W. G. (1976). The Myth of Semantic Presupposition. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University.
   Google Scholar
• Breen, M. (2014). Empirical investigations of the role of implicit prosody in sentence processing. Language and Linguistics Compass, 8, 37–50.
   Google Scholar
• Büring, D. (2003). On D-trees, beans and B-accents. Linguistics and Philosophy, 26, 511–545.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chierchia, G., & McConnell-Ginet, S. (2000). Meaning and grammar: An introduction to semantics (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Fodor, J. D. (2002). Psycholinguistics cannot escape prosody. In Bel. B. and I. Marlien (eds.), Proceedings of the SPEECH PROSODY 2002 Conference, Aix-en-Provence, France, April 2002
   Google Scholar
• Grice, H. P. (1989). Studies in the way of words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Groenendijk, J., & Stokhof, M. (1984). Studies on the semantics of questions and the pragmatics of answers. University of Amsterdam dissertation.
   Google Scholar
• Groenendijk, J., & Stokhof, M. (1997). Questions. In Johan van Benthem & Alice ter Meulen (Eds.), Handbook of logic and language (pp. 1055–1124). New York, NY, and Cambridge, MA: Elsevier Science/MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hamblin, C. (1973). Questions in Montague English. Foundations of Language, 10, 41–53.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heim, I. (1983). On the projection problem for presuppositions. In M. Barlow, D. Flickinger, & M. Wescoat (Eds.), Proceedings of WCCFL 2, Stanford University (pp. 114–125). Reprinted in S. Davis (ed.), Pragmatics (pp. 397–405). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Heim, I. (1992). Presupposition projection and the semantics of attitude verbs. Journal of Semantics, 9, 183–221.
   Google Scholar
• Kadmon, N. (2001). Formal pragmatics. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Karttunen, L. (1977). Syntax and semantics of questions. Linguistics and Philosophy, 1, 3–44.
   Google Scholar
• Karttunen, L., & Peters, S. (1979). Conventional implicature. In Ch. Oh & D. Dinneen (Eds.), Syntax and semantics 11: Presupposition (pp. 1–56). New York, NY: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kempson, R. (1975). Presupposition and the delimitation of semantics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kratzer, A. (1981). The notional category of modality. In H. J. Eikmeyer & H. Rieser (Eds.), Words, worlds, and contexts: New approaches in word semantics (pp. 38–74). Berlin: de Gruyter. [Revised and published in Kratzer, A. (2012). Modals and conditionals: new and revised perspectives. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.].
   Google Scholar
• Langendoen, D. T., & Savin, H. B. (1971). The projection problem for presuppositions. In C. J. Fillmore & D. T. Langendoen (Eds.), Studies in linguistic semantics (pp. 55–60). New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lewis, D. (1969). Convention: A philosophical study. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Morgan, J. L. (1978). Two types of convention in indirect speech acts. In P. Cole (Ed.), Syntax and semantics Volume 9: Pragmatics (pp. 261–280). New York, NY: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Roberts, C. (1996). Information structure: Towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics. In Je Hak Yoon and A. Kathol (eds.), Ohio State University Working Papers in Linguistics (OSUWPL) Volume 49: Papers in Semantics. Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University Department of Linguistics.
   Google Scholar
• Roberts, C. (1998). Focus, the flow of information, and universal grammar. In P. Culicover & L. McNally (Eds.), The limits of syntax (pp. 109–160). New York, NY: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Roberts, C. (2012). Information structure in discourse: towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics. Semantics and Pragmatics, 5, 1–69. [Reprint of Roberts (1996).].
   Google Scholar
• Rooth, M. (1985). Association with focus. Ph.D. dissertation, UMass, Amherst Dept of Linguistics.
   Google Scholar
• Rooth, M. (1992). A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics Volume, 1, 75–116.
   Google Scholar
• van der Sandt, R. (1992). Presupposition projection as anaphora resolution. Journal of Semantics, 9, 333–377.
   Google Scholar
• van Rooij, R., & Schulz, K. (2004). Exhaustive interpretation of complex sentences. Journal of Logic, Language, and Information, 13, 491–519.
   Google Scholar
• Schlenker, P. (2008). Be articulate: a pragmatic theory of presupposition projection. Theoretical Linguistics, 34, 157–212.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Selkirk, E. O. (1984). Phonology and syntax: the relation between sound and structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Silverman, K., Beckman, M., Pitrelli, J., Ostendorf, M., Wightman, C., Price, P., … Hirschberg, J. (1992). ToBI: A standard for labelling English prosody. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Spoken Language Processing (ICSLP) (Vol. 2, pp. 867–870). Banff.
   Google Scholar
• Simons, M. (2001). On the conversational basis of some presuppositions. In R. Hastings, B. Jackson, & Z. Zvolensky (Eds.), Proceedings of semantics and linguistic theory 11 (pp. 431–448). Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Simons, M. (2004). Presupposition and relevance. In Z. Szabó (Ed.), Semantics vs. pragmatics (pp. 329–355). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Simons, M. (2007). Observations on embedding verbs, evidentiality, and presupposition. Lingua, 117, 1034–1056.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stalnaker, R. (1974). Pragmatic presuppositions. In M. Munitz & Peter Unger (Eds.), Semantics and philosophy (pp. 329–355). New York, NY: New York University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wilson, D. (1975). Presupposition and non-truth-conditional semantics. London, UK: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar