↓ Skip to main content

Selecting Presuppositions in Conditional Clauses. Results from a Psycholinguistic Experiment

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
12 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Selecting Presuppositions in Conditional Clauses. Results from a Psycholinguistic Experiment
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, January 2016
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.02026
Pubmed ID
Authors

Filippo Domaneschi, Elena Carrea, Carlo Penco, Alberto Greco

Abstract

In this paper, we propose an experiment concerning presupposition selection in conditional sentences containing a presupposition trigger in the consequent. Many theories claim that sentences like if p, q q'-where q is the presupposition of the assertive component q'-have unconditional presuppositions, namely, they simply project q. Other theories suggest that these kinds of conditional sentences project conditional presuppositions of the form if p, q. Data collected suggest two results: (i) in accordance with other experiments (by Romoli), dependence between the presupposition q and the antecedent p favors the selection of a conditional presupposition if p, q. (ii) presupposition selection in conditional sentences with a trigger in the consequent is affected by speakers' cognitive load: if speakers are highly cognitive loaded, then they are less disposed to select a conditional presupposition. We conclude by arguing that cognitive load represents a key factor for the analysis of linguistic and philosophical theories of context.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 12 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 12 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 17%
Researcher 2 17%
Student > Master 2 17%
Professor 2 17%
Lecturer 1 8%
Other 3 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Linguistics 4 33%
Arts and Humanities 2 17%
Psychology 2 17%
Philosophy 1 8%
Social Sciences 1 8%
Other 2 17%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 January 2016.
All research outputs
#18,434,182
of 22,837,982 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#22,190
of 29,839 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#285,487
of 395,128 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#370
of 444 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,837,982 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,839 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 395,128 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 444 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.