A pragmatic account of a presuppositional effect

Two different theoretical accounts of a presuppositional effect in sentence interpretation were considered. One is a semantic account based on componential analysis. The other is a pragmatic account based on relevance theory which does not call for lexical decomposition. The two theoretical points of view were tested against each other by making use of a well-known riddle, studied by Noordman (1979), whose standard form is: “You are my son, but I am not your father. Who am I?” In the first experiment, a manipulation based on the replacement of a lexical unit with a paraphrastic expression that did not contain the critical semantic component failed to enhance performance, whereas in the second experiment, a manipulation of contextual information leaving the lexical unit unaltered was successful in modifying performance. Both results conform to the predictions of relevance theory, but are at variance with the predictions of the componential theory.