The DOI matches its Crossref record; 57 of the 57 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Toward a Taxonomy of Projective Content
Open accessAbstract
Projective contents, which include presuppositional inferences and Potts's (2005) conventional implicatures, are contents that may project when a construction is embedded, as standardly identified by the family-of-sentences diagnostic (e.g. Chierchia & McConnell-Ginet 1990). This article establishes distinctions among projective contents on the basis of a series of diagnostics, including a variant of the family-of-sentences diagnostic, that can be applied with linguistically untrained consultants in the field and the laboratory. These diagnostics are intended to serve as part of a toolkit for exploring projective contents across languages, thus allowing generalizations to be examined and validated cross-linguistically. We apply the diagnostics in two languages, focusing on Paraguayan Guaraní (Tupí-Guaraní), and comparing the results to those for English. Our study of Paraguayan Guaraní is the first systematic exploration of projective content in a language other than English. Based on the application of our diagnostics to a wide range of constructions, four subclasses of projective contents emerge. The resulting taxonomy of projective content has strong implications for contemporary theories of projection (e.g. Karttunen 1974, Heim 1983, van der Sandt 1992, Potts 2005, Schlenker 2009), which were developed for the projective properties of particular subclasses and fail to generalize to the full set of projective contents.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Grice, H. P. (1975) · Speech Acts · doi:10.1163/9789004368811_003 · Cited by 23,221
The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases
Heim, I. (1982) · ScholarWorks@UMassAmherst (University of Massachusetts Amherst) · doi:10.5281/zenodo.8100764 · Cited by 2,990
Scorekeeping in a language game
Lewis, D. (1979) · Journal of Philosophical Logic · doi:10.1007/bf00258436 · Cited by 2,467
A Festschrift for Morris Halle
Halle, M., Anderson, S. R., & Kiparsky, P. (1973) · Holt, Rinehart and Winston eBooks · Cited by 1,914
Semantics: An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning
Maienborn, C., von Heusinger, K., & Pörtner, P. (2011) · Cited by 1,500
The Logic of Conventional Implicatures
Potts, C. (2004) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199273829.001.0001 · Cited by 1,311
Stalnaker, R. (2002) · Linguistics and Philosophy · doi:10.1023/a:1020867916902 · Cited by 1,293
Presupposition Projection as Anaphora Resolution
VAN DER SANDT, R. A. (1992) · Journal of Semantics · doi:10.1093/jos/9.4.333 · Cited by 1,156
Presupposition Projection and the Semantics of Attitude Verbs
Heim, I. (1992) · Journal of Semantics · doi:10.1093/jos/9.3.183 · Cited by 1,041
Studies in Linguistic Semantics
Williams, G. M., Fillmore, C. J., & Langendoen, D. T. (1979) · American Speech · doi:10.2307/454529 · Cited by 1,010
Cited by
The Oxford Handbook of Information Structure
(2016) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199642670.001.0001 · Cited by 423
Ciardelli, I., Groenendijk, J., & Roelofsen, F. (2018) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780198814788.001.0001 · Cited by 280
Metadata
- Authors
- Tonhauser, J., Beaver, D., Roberts, C., & Simons, M.
- Venue
- Language
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 2013-03
- Volume
- 89
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 66-109
- ISSN
- 0097-8507 (ISSN-L)
- 1535-0665
- OpenAlex
- W2141101471
- Cited by
- 373
- References
- 57
- FWCI
- 234.04
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Toward a Taxonomy of Projective Content. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1353/lan.2013.0001
- The paper
- Tonhauser, J., Beaver, D., Roberts, C., & Simons, M. (2013). Toward a Taxonomy of Projective Content. Language. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2013.0001
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.