standOff, and the article is at its publisher via the link below. When we have changed our mind. Some entries in the table begin with a word in capitals and the reason for it. EVIDENCE CORRECTED — the finding still stands, but we had quoted the wrong sentence from the paper, and the quotation has been replaced with the right one. RETRACTED — the entry itself was wrong; it stays on the page, marked, with the reason, rather than being deleted. WITHDRAWN AND REPLACED — the entry was wrong, and a corrected version of it appears in the entries below. Each mark carries its own reason, in brackets, because the reasons differ from one entry to the next. An entry we have WITHDRAWN is removed from this page and kept in the record, with its reason. A line reading Audit and a date is a later re-reading of the entry against its whole sentence: DOUBTFUL means it was kept, and the reason says what is loose about it. Quotation marks inside the tagger's sentence. Where a tag is the tagger's own sentence, a phrase in quotation marks inside it is borrowed from the paper — the tagger's wording around it is not. The paper's own sentence is the evidence quote for that row; on this page it is withheld with the article, and the article is at its publisher. Nothing inside quotation marks anywhere on this page is ours: if it is quoted, it is the paper's. Whose words a concept carries. A concept entry records a term the paper itself uses, so the term, the sense given for it, and its evidence are the paper's own words, quoted where the paper fixes them. This is the opposite of a sense entry in the tag table, which is the tagger's sentence about how the paper uses a term. Where a concept entry could not be grounded in the paper's words, the entry says so on its own row.| relation to other work | claim_relations | how this paper stands to another: agrees, contradicts, extends, qualifies |
| claim type | claim_type | the shape of the claim: existence, mechanism, method, critique, prediction, null |
| concept edge | concept_edges | an asserted relation between two concepts, with the sentence asserting it |
| concept | concepts | an idea the paper works with, quoted where the paper uses it |
| content tag | content_tags | a finding, definition, quantity, statistic or variable named in the paper |
| contribution | contribution | what the paper claims to add |
| control | controls | an experiment run to eliminate a rival explanation |
| limitation | limitations | what the paper says its evidence cannot support |
| mechanism | mechanisms | how the reported effect is said to come about |
| method | method | how the paper produced its evidence |
| object of study | object_of_study | what the paper is about — the thing it investigates |
| phenomenon | phenomenon | the effect or regularity under study |
| research question | research_question | the question the paper sets itself |
| sense | senses | a distinct use of a term, quoted where the paper fixes it |
| transfer | transfers | a method or concept carried in from another field |
| unrecordable relation | unhoused_relations | a relation the paper asserts that this vocabulary cannot express, with the reason |
Relations on this page carry a quotation for the claim. Where a relation was separately evidenced — and so tested against the vocabulary for its type — the row says so; 2 of 2 relations here carry that mark. The rest are the tagger’s reading of the sentence quoted beside them.
| facet | tag | field | conf. | whose words |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| object_of_study | presupposition accommodation - the adjustment a conversation's common ground undergoes so that a sentence whose requirements it does not yet satisfy can still update it Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | object_of_study | the paper's words | |
| research_question | whether accommodation is mysterious, magical or needed, how hard it is, where it happens, and what exactly gets accommodated Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | research_question | the paper's words | |
| contribution | defends the common-ground-plus-accommodation theory against the charges of magic and superfluity, and separates accommodation proper from two things routinely confused with it - grammatical presupposition cancellation, and reconstructing a conversation one is not a party to Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | contribution | the paper's words | |
| claim_type | critique Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_type | the paper's words | |
| phenomenon | informative presupposition - a sentence presupposing something the hearer demonstrably does not yet believe, and succeeding anyway Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | phenomenon | the paper's words | |
| method | conceptual-analysis Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: conceptual-analysis | method | the paper's words | |
| mechanisms | an utterance changes the common ground in TWO steps - first the bare fact that it was made becomes common ground, and only then is the asserted proposition added; accommodation happens in the first step Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | the prior context relevant to interpretation is the context AS CHANGED BY the fact that the speech act was made, which is why the pronoun I has a referent at all Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | what makes the common ground adjustable is that it is constituted entirely by the participants' beliefs, and beliefs move in response to other people's actions Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. about this quote: A FOOTNOTE IS JOINED INTO THIS QUOTE after 'actions, the common ground is': footnote 8 and a page number are spliced in, and the paper's sentence resumes after them ('more easily changed…'). | mechanisms[2] | 0.9 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | hearers do not weigh candidate PROPOSITIONS to add; they weigh candidate NEW COMMON GROUNDS by how plausibly the speaker intended them - which is what resolves the Proviso Problem Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[3] | 0.9 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | accommodation fails when the presupposition concerns a fact no mental adjustment can bring into being, such as what the conversation has actually made salient Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[4] | 0.9 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | a present-tense presupposition can be too early to accommodate: since we all know demands that the knowledge hold AT utterance time, which later accommodation cannot supply Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[5] | 0.9 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | A DATED COINAGE WITH THE DEFINITION ATTACHED: `Lewis in his score-keeping paper named the phenomenon “Accommodation”: The Rule of Accommodation for Presupposition - If at time t something is said that requires presupposition P to be acceptable, and if P is not presupposed just before t, then ... presupposition P comes into existence at t. (Lewis 1979)` The naming act, the year, and the rule in one place. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[6] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | AND THE TERM WAS BORN AS A SPECIAL CASE OF SOMETHING WIDER, WHICH IS WHY IT COULD TRAVEL: `For Lewis, presupposition accommodation was A SPECIAL CASE OF OTHER ADJUSTMENTS TO THE CONTEXT that are done quietly and without fuss when required.` A narrow technical term carved out of a general conversational phenomenon - and Thomason later takes it back to the general case. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[7] | 0.9 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | A NAMED MISREADING OF A DEFINITION, QUOTED AND REBUTTED IN PRINT: `GAUKER (2008) MISUNDERSTANDS the proposal that presuppositions are preconditions that need to be satisfied before the common ground can be updated`, followed by Gauker's own words and then `This is an error`. The corpus rarely catches one author telling another that he has the definition wrong, with both statements quoted. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[8] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | the paper cannot explain the very principle it relies on - why new information may be presupposed only when it is uncontroversial - and says so Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | limitations[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | declared and left open: the author hands the challenge to future work rather than answering it here Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | limitations[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | the account assumes hardwired semantic presuppositions and declines to defend that assumption against pragmatic-derivation approaches Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | limitations[2] | 0.9 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | it is agnostic about the semantic implementation, taking either a three-valued or a ccp-based wiring Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | limitations[3] | 0.85 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | the analysis of the grammatical process it separates off is explicitly not given Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | limitations[4] | 0.9 | the tagger's words |
| transfers | the cases from Thomason of assuming leadership in a group and switching to the familiar pronoun, accommodation as a SOCIAL move imported to explain the conversational one Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | transfers[0] | 0.9 | the tagger's words |
| transfers | the local and intermediate accommodation dispute is aligned with the embedded-implicature debate, and the same grammatical-versus-Gricean split is proposed for both Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | transfers[1] | 0.8 | the tagger's words |
| controls | the pretense account, on which the speaker merely acts as if the proposition is already common ground Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: the possibility that informative presupposition needs no accommodation because nothing is really being presupposed · outcome: failed | controls[0] | 0.9 | the tagger's words |
| controls | utterance presupposition, which relocates the requirement from the speaker to the utterance Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: the possibility that the problem dissolves by redefining who or what does the presupposing · outcome: failed | controls[1] | 0.9 | the tagger's words |
| controls | a set of candidate common grounds ordered by plausibility, as in Beaver 2001 Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: the possibility that uncertainty about the common ground, rather than adjustment of it, explains the data · outcome: partial | controls[2] | 0.85 | the tagger's words |
| controls | the survey of alternatives to accommodation in Part 1 section 4 Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: the possibility that accommodation is superfluous because some other account does the same work · outcome: held | controls[3] | 0.9 | the tagger's words |
| concepts | common ground Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: common ground | concepts[0] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | context set Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: context set | concepts[1] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | accommodation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: accommodation | concepts[2] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | Rule of Accommodation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: Rule of Accommodation | concepts[3] | 0.9 | the paper's words |
| concepts | local accommodation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: local accommodation | concepts[4] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | intermediate accommodation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: intermediate accommodation | concepts[5] | 0.9 | the paper's words |
| concepts | Utterance Presupposition Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: Utterance Presupposition | concepts[6] | 0.9 | the paper's words |
| concepts | Proviso Problem Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: Proviso Problem | concepts[7] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | context change potential Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: context change potential | concepts[8] | 0.9 | the paper's words |
| concepts | Common Ground Target Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: Common Ground Target | concepts[9] | 0.9 | the paper's words |
| concepts | pretense Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: pretense | concepts[10] | 0.9 | the paper's words |
| concepts | Informative Presuppositions Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: Informative Presuppositions | concepts[11] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| unhoused_relations | common ground → context set Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. A FORMAL DEFINITION WITH NOTHING MEASURED, AND THE EIGHT-TYPE VOCABULARY HAS NO SLOT FOR IT. The context set IS the common ground stated extensionally - the paper restates one as the other in its own words. I tagged it 'operationalised-as' and the gate refused: that type requires a MEASUREMENT OR DEFINITION cue, and it was right, because nothing here is measured. 'same-as' is wrong too - a set of propositions and a set of worlds are different objects. What is needed is 'defined-in-terms-of', which does not exist. Dropped from concept edges 2026-08-26 rather than forced into the nearest type. | unhoused_relations[0] | 0.9 | the tagger's words |
| unhoused_relations | intermediate accommodation → local accommodation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. A RENAMING INSIDE ONE FIELD, AND THE ONLY SENTENCE THAT STATES IT IS DAMAGED. The paper says the process 'was sometimes called “local accommodation” but is now more usually termed “intermediate accommodation”' - and the staged text carries the page number 30 wedged inside the phrase, 'termed “intermediate 30 accommodation”'. Quoted as an edge label that would read as a tagging error forever. 'renamed-across-fields' is also the wrong type: this is one field renaming its own term, not a name crossing between fields. Evidence here is Berman's formulation instead, which states the process without naming it. A DAMAGED SENTENCE IS NOT THE ONLY SENTENCE - except when it is the only one that says the thing, and then the relation goes here. | unhoused_relations[1] | 0.85 | the tagger's words |
| senses | accommodation - Lewis's rule, where the presupposition COMES INTO EXISTENCE on demand and the process therefore looks like magic Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[0] | 0.9 | the tagger's words |
| senses | accommodation - the timing account, where nothing appears from nowhere because the requirement falls due at UPDATE time, not before the utterance Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[1] | 0.9 | the tagger's words |
| senses | accommodation - Thomason's SOCIAL sense, the same move by which a person assumes authority or intimacy by acting as if they already had it Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[2] | 0.85 | the tagger's words |
| senses | `presupposition` (Stalnaker's own usage) - AND HE SAYS HIS OWN DEFINITION DOES NOT COVER IT: under pretense `the speaker's presuppositions, in the sense of the term I SHALL USE, WILL NOT FIT THE DEFINITION SKETCHED ABOVE ... THAT IS WHY THE DEFINITION IS ONLY AN APPROXIMATION.` An author stipulating a usage that exceeds the definition he has just given, and labelling the definition an approximation rather than repairing it. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[3] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | contradicts → Burton-Roberts (1989) and Gauker (1998), that informative presuppositions are fatal to the common ground theory Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | critiques → Soames (1982), that informative presuppositions undermine every definition requiring the presupposed proposition to be present before the utterance Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[1] | 0.9 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | builds-on → Stalnaker (1998) on the time-dependence of context Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[2] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | critiques → the definitional repair by Soames via utterance presupposition Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[3] | 0.9 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | critiques → Beaver (2001), that a set of candidate common grounds handles informative presupposition Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[4] | 0.9 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | contradicts → Berman (1991), that nuclear-scope presuppositions are accommodated into the restrictor Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[5] | 0.9 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | contradicts → Geurts (1996), that the Proviso Problem should be solved by abandoning weak conditional presuppositions Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[6] | 0.9 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | local accommodation —distinct-from→ accommodation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. the relation itself is separately evidenced · strength of the relation: 0.95 · note: the sharpest claim in the paper - the two share a name and not a mechanism · the relation stated: the paper denies that the local process is the same kind of thing as accommodation proper also in: local accommodation · accommodation | concept_edges[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | pretense —contrasted-with→ accommodation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. the relation itself is separately evidenced · strength of the relation: 0.85 · the relation stated: presupposing is recast as a disposition to behave rather than a belief, which is what pretense makes of it
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its span and kept, but the span says pretense is not a mental attitude; contrasted-with 'accommodation' is loose. also in: pretense · accommodation | concept_edges[1] | 0.9 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | accommodation is not mysterious once the presupposition is understood as falling due at update time rather than before the utterance Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | there is no local accommodation; what is called that is either a grammatical process or global accommodation about the quantifier domain Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | no alternative to the common ground plus accommodation picture survived examination Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[2] | 0.9 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | what gets accommodated is fixed by the best guess of the hearers at the intended new common ground, not by minimality Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[3] | 0.9 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | the stronger unconditional proposition cannot be accommodated for being more plausible, because it asymmetrically entails the weaker conditional one Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[4] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | pragmatic presupposition as a requirement imposed on the common ground Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: pragmatic presupposition | content_tags.definitions[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | the bridge principle licensing a partial proposition to update a body of information Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: bridge principle | content_tags.definitions[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | the rule of accommodation as originally stated by Lewis Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.definitions[3] | 0.9 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | the free domain-restriction variable C on a quantifier, presupposed to be familiar Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: C variable | content_tags.variables[0] | 0.9 | the tagger's words |
Tags that could not be placed in the text:
What was deliberately not tagged, and why, is recorded per paper by the tagger. Where a paper has no such record, this page says so rather than implying that nothing was declined.