What projects and why

TLDR

Projection is widely used as a diagnostic for presupposition, yet many expression types such as appositives, expressives, and honorifics exhibit projection without standard presupposition properties, indicating a need for a unitary explanation. The authors aim to explain projective behavior by proposing that meanings project iff they are not at‑issue, as defined by Roberts' discourse theory. They analyze projective triggers by applying Roberts' (1995) discourse theory to define at‑issueness and determine when meanings project. Standard explanations fail to account for the full range of projective triggers, but the authors find that these triggers form a natural class based on not‑at‑issue status.

Abstract

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.