Switching the Strategy for Processing Presupposition Triggers: Split of Focus and the Reinterpretation of Triggers' Scope

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to identify factors that assist in switching from the default strategy (resolution strategy) for interpreting presupposition triggers to the secondary one (accom- modation strategy or rejection strategy), namely, mechanisms by which the context is made inap- propriate for the presupposition of triggers in such utterances as: the professor went to Chicago again. Previous research on how presupposition triggers are processed has discussed the follow- ing two cases: those in which the entire proposition demanded by a presupposition trigger already exists in the context and those in which no part of the demanded proposition is present. This pa- per scrutinizes cases located somewhere on the continuum between the two 'idealized' cases, i.e., those in which part of the utterance is entailed by the context. By examining such cases, in which it is not so obvious whether the hearer adopts resolution or accommodation/rejection, we derive a hypothesis on our subconscious choice of a strategy for processing a presupposition trigger. The hypothesis in this paper is that, given that presupposition triggers are in nature the focus of their sentences, in case only part of a proposition demanded by a trigger is provided in the context, several linguistic items (the trigger and other items expressing what is not provided in the context) compete for the job of the focus of the sentence, resulting in difficulty in grasping the speaker's in- tended message. This hypothesis will, via its niche in the scope of explanation, show that multiple factors interact in driving the hearer's choice of a strategy for processing presupposition triggers.