Documentation

Linglib.Phenomena.Presupposition.Studies.TonhauserBeaverDegen2018

@cite{tonhauser-beaver-degen-2018}: How Projective Is Projective Content? #

@cite{tonhauser-beaver-degen-2018} @cite{potts-2005} @cite{tonhauser-beaver-roberts-simons-2013}Empirical data from "How projective is projective content? Gradience in projectivity and at-issueness." Journal of Semantics 35(3): 495–542.

Key Findings #

  1. Projectivity is gradient, not binary. Even "strong" projective triggers like NRRCs show mean projectivity ≈ .96, not 1.0.
  2. Not-at-issueness is gradient and positively correlated with projectivity: r = .85 across 9 expression types (Exp 1a), r = .99 across 12 predicates (Exp 1b).
  3. Appositives are not maximally projective, contra @cite{potts-2005}.
  4. Within-type variation: different lexical items of the same type yield different ratings.

Gradient Projection Principle (GPP) #

The paper's central theoretical contribution (p. 497, ex. 7):

"If content C is expressed by a constituent embedded under an entailment-canceling operator, then C projects to the extent that it is not at-issue."

This generalizes Simons et al.'s (2010) Pragmatic Account by replacing the binary at-issue/not-at-issue distinction with a gradient one.

Experiments #

Data #

Values are approximate means read from Figures 3 and 6. The paper reports ranges in text (e.g., projectivity .76–.96 for Exp 1a) but does not provide a table of exact per-expression means. Textually confirmed values are annotated.

The scale is 0–1 (proportion of "yes" responses). The paper measures not-at-issueness via the "asking whether" diagnostic: higher values mean the content is MORE not-at-issue (more backgrounded).

The 9 expression types tested in Experiment 1a.

All are non-SCF (Strong Contextual Felicity = no), chosen to isolate projectivity and at-issueness variation (p. 504).

  • Class B (SCF=no, OLE=no): NRRC, nominal appositive, possessive NP
  • Class C (SCF=no, OLE=yes): discover, know, be annoyed, stop
  • Focus-sensitive: only
  • Evaluative adjective: be stupid to
Instances For
    Equations
    • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
    Instances For

      Mean projectivity rating from Experiment 1a (0–1 scale).

      Values approximate means from Figure 3. Text (p. 507) confirms:

      • only = .76 (minimum)
      • NRRC = .96 and be annoyed = .96 (maximum, "close to ceiling")
      Equations
      Instances For

        Mean not-at-issueness rating from Experiment 1a (0–1 scale). Measured via the "asking whether" diagnostic.

        Higher = more not-at-issue (more backgrounded).

        Values approximate means from Figure 3. Text (p. 508) confirms:

        • only = .73 (minimum)
        • NRRC = .96 (maximum)
        Equations
        Instances For

          The 12 clause-embedding predicates from Experiment 1b (p. 511).

          Semantic classes (per paper):

          • Emotive: be amused, be annoyed
          • Cognitive: be aware, discover, find out, learn, notice, realize, establish
          • Sensory: see
          • Communication: confess, reveal
          Instances For
            Equations
            • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
            Instances For

              Mean projectivity ratings for the 12 predicates from Exp 1b (0–1 scale). Values approximate means from Figure 6.

              Equations
              Instances For

                Mean not-at-issueness ratings for the 12 predicates from Exp 1b (0–1 scale). Values approximate means from Figure 6.

                Equations
                Instances For

                  Regression coefficient: not-at-issueness predicts projectivity. Exp 1a (p. 508–509): β = 0.37, SE = 0.10, t = 3.70, p < .003. Exp 1b (p. 514): β = 0.34, SE = 0.04, t = 9.31, p < .0001.

                  The effect is significant in both experiments.

                  Instances For
                    Equations
                    • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
                    Instances For

                      Pearson r for not-at-issueness × projectivity (positive correlation). "Collapsing" = computed over expression-type/predicate means. "Not collapsing" = computed over individual items.

                      Exp 1a (p. 508): r = .85 (collapsing), r = .45 (not collapsing) Exp 1b (p. 514): r = .99 (collapsing), r = .44 (not collapsing)

                      • collapsing :
                      • notCollapsing :
                      Instances For
                        Equations
                        • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
                        Instances For

                          Appositives are not maximally projective, contra @cite{potts-2005}. Potts predicted CI content (including appositives) should project obligatorily. The data shows 94/100 — high but not 1.0.

                          Within-type variation: factive predicates differ in projectivity. discover (.88) vs know (.91) — both traditionally "factive" but different ratings.

                          GPP supported for Exp 1a extremes: only has highest at-issueness and lowest projectivity; NRRC has lowest at-issueness and highest projectivity.

                          be annoyed has the highest projectivity among the 12 predicates. (Tied with notice at .94.)

                          establish has the lowest projectivity (.43) — notably below .50, suggesting it may not even be a projective trigger.

                          establish is the only predicate with projectivity below the midpoint .50, suggesting it may not be a projective trigger.

                          All predicates except establish have projectivity ≥ .65.

                          The top group of Exp 1a (Table 1): {NRRC, annoyed, NomApp, possNP, know} show no significant pairwise differences in projectivity. These form the "high projectivity" cluster (.91–.96).

                          only is significantly different from all other expression types (Table 1: all pairwise comparisons significant at p < .001).

                          The top group of Exp 1b (Table 3): {annoyed, notice, aware, realize, amused, findOut} show no significant pairwise differences. These form the "high projectivity" cluster (.90–.94).

                          establish is clearly separated from the top group (Table 3: all pairwise comparisons significant at p < .001).

                          Mean projectivity for Class B triggers (NRRC, appositive, possessive NP).

                          Equations
                          • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
                          Instances For

                            Mean projectivity for Class C triggers (discover, know, annoyed, stop).

                            Equations
                            • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
                            Instances For

                              Mean not-at-issueness for Class B triggers.

                              Equations
                              • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
                              Instances For

                                Mean not-at-issueness for Class C triggers.

                                Equations
                                • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
                                Instances For