English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

I assume that semantic presuppositions are encoded in the semantic values of sentences, using truth value gaps or definedness of a file change potentials. 2 A pragmatic presupposition of an utterance is a proposition p such that in making the utterance, the speaker communicates that he takes p to follow from the current common ground of shared information. Typically, if a sentence S has a semantic presupposition p, and a speaker asserts S, then the speaker pragmatically presupposes p. Stalnaker (1 974) introduced the project of using the lexical representation (2a) without a semantic presupposition, and deriving the pragmatically presupposed status of the factive implication by conversational reasoning.3 I think this project is attractive for what I call soft triggers, which are presupposition triggers where the presuppositional behavior is weak and easily suspendable. Karttun en (1 971 ) mentioned that it is easy to suspend the factive implication of discover. In typical utterances, (3a) does not pragmatically presuppose that the speaker has not told the truth. The same holds for (3b) and (3c). (The examples are from Karttunen (1 971 ).)

Lexical Alternatives as a Source of Pragmatic Presuppositions