What projects and why

Proceedings of SALT

Mandy Simons, Judith Tonhauser, David I. Beaver, Craige Roberts

Semantic Scholar DOI


APA   Click to copy
Simons, M., Tonhauser, J., Beaver, D. I., & Roberts, C. (2010). What projects and why.

Chicago/Turabian   Click to copy
Simons, Mandy, Judith Tonhauser, David I. Beaver, and Craige Roberts. “What Projects and Why” (2010).

MLA   Click to copy
Simons, Mandy, et al. What Projects and Why. 2010.

BibTeX   Click to copy

  title = {What projects and why},
  year = {2010},
  author = {Simons, Mandy and Tonhauser, Judith and Beaver, David I. and Roberts, Craige}


Projection is widely used as a diagnostic for presupposition, but many expression types yield projection even though they do not have standard properties of presupposition, for example, appositives, expressives, and honorifics (Potts 2005). While it is possible to analyze projection piecemeal, clearly a unitary explanation is to be preferred. Yet we show that standard explanations of projective behavior (common ground based theories, anaphoric theories, and multi-dimensional theories) do not extend to the full range of triggers. Instead, we propose an alternative explanation based on the following claim: Meanings project iff they are not at-issue, where at-issueness is defined in terms of the Roberts' (1995) discourse theory. Thus, and despite their apparent heterogeneity, projective meaning triggers emerge as a natural class on the basis of the not-at-issue status of their projective inference.

Follow this website

You need to create an Owlstown account to follow this website.

Sign up

Already an Owlstown member?

Log in