Accommodation: a cognitive heuristic for background information

Misha-Laura Müller
{"title":"Accommodation: a cognitive heuristic for background information","authors":"Misha-Laura Müller","doi":"10.4000/ANGLOPHONIA.1491","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Presuppositions are usually defined as a linguistic means to convey background information, which require very little cognitive effort to be interpreted (Sperber & Wilson [1986] 1995: 706). As for the accommodation of presupposition, it is defined as a process by which the listener updates – also at minimal costs – the presupposed information whenever it is not mutually shared. Accommodation is generally considered to be a voluntary process (cf. von Fintel 2000), which may be inhibited when information is problematic or contradicts the listener’s prior beliefs.The aim of this paper is to challenge the idea that accommodation operates only on traditional presuppositional triggers (Beaver 2001). Furthermore, I argue against the claim that this process is autonomous and always under voluntary control. To do so, I first show how traditional triggers form a heterogeneous class that is difficult to capture in terms of attention requirements and cognitive costs (see Domaneschi et al. 2014). I then present discursive presuppositions (de Saussure 2013) and underline their similarities with semantic presuppositions. I show to what extent accommodation is likely to be a process dedicated to both semantic and discursive presuppositions. Finally, I argue that accommodation can be viewed as a cognitive heuristic for background information, involving minimal attention. Such an approach should allow to explain why presupposition accommodation is likely to bypass the listener’s epistemic vigilance (Sperber et al. 2010), as evidenced by experiments in experimental psychology (Bredart & Modolo 1988; Reder & Kusbit 1991; Park & Reder 2004 inter alia).","PeriodicalId":31138,"journal":{"name":"Anglophonia","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Anglophonia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4000/ANGLOPHONIA.1491","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

Presuppositions are usually defined as a linguistic means to convey background information, which require very little cognitive effort to be interpreted (Sperber & Wilson [1986] 1995: 706). As for the accommodation of presupposition, it is defined as a process by which the listener updates – also at minimal costs – the presupposed information whenever it is not mutually shared. Accommodation is generally considered to be a voluntary process (cf. von Fintel 2000), which may be inhibited when information is problematic or contradicts the listener’s prior beliefs.The aim of this paper is to challenge the idea that accommodation operates only on traditional presuppositional triggers (Beaver 2001). Furthermore, I argue against the claim that this process is autonomous and always under voluntary control. To do so, I first show how traditional triggers form a heterogeneous class that is difficult to capture in terms of attention requirements and cognitive costs (see Domaneschi et al. 2014). I then present discursive presuppositions (de Saussure 2013) and underline their similarities with semantic presuppositions. I show to what extent accommodation is likely to be a process dedicated to both semantic and discursive presuppositions. Finally, I argue that accommodation can be viewed as a cognitive heuristic for background information, involving minimal attention. Such an approach should allow to explain why presupposition accommodation is likely to bypass the listener’s epistemic vigilance (Sperber et al. 2010), as evidenced by experiments in experimental psychology (Bredart & Modolo 1988; Reder & Kusbit 1991; Park & Reder 2004 inter alia).
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
适应:对背景信息的认知启发式
预设通常被定义为一种传达背景信息的语言手段,它需要很少的认知努力来解释(Sperber & Wilson[1986] 1995: 706)。至于对预设的适应,它被定义为听者在预设信息不相互共享时更新的过程- -也以最小的代价。适应通常被认为是一个自愿的过程(参见von Fintel 2000),当信息有问题或与听者的先验信念相矛盾时,这一过程可能会受到抑制。本文的目的是挑战适应只在传统的预设触发上起作用的观点(Beaver 2001)。此外,我反对这种说法,即这个过程是自主的,总是在自愿控制之下。为了做到这一点,我首先展示了传统的触发因素是如何形成一个在注意力要求和认知成本方面难以捕捉的异质类别的(参见Domaneschi等人2014)。然后,我提出了话语预设(de Saussure 2013),并强调了它们与语义预设的相似性。我展示了适应在多大程度上可能是一个致力于语义和话语预设的过程。最后,我认为适应可以被看作是对背景信息的认知启发,涉及最小的注意力。这种方法可以解释为什么预设适应可能会绕过听者的认知警觉(Sperber et al. 2010),实验心理学的实验证明了这一点(Bredart & Modolo 1988;Reder & Kusbit 1991;Park & Reder 2004)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊最新文献
Opposing English, Contesting Capitalism: Pearse’s and Connolly’s discourses on the “Necessity for De-Anglicising Ireland” in the Early 20th Usages de l’anglais dans les intitulés de postes d'un corpus francophone. Analyse discursive outillée d’un corpus d’annonces d’emploi en ligne “Diversity’s good unless you have a Southern accent, then you’re a hick”: Self-evaluation, linguistic insecurity and symbolic domination in Middle Tennessee Introduction: English(es) as a social practice Terminologie militante et changement social : le cas du terme femicide dans le discours de l’ONU sur la violence envers les femmes
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1