Online research in philosophy

Recent semantic research has made increasing use of a principle, ‘Maximize Presupposition’, which requires that under certain circumstances the strongest possible presupposition be marked (Sauerland 2006). This principle is generally taken to be irreducible to standard (neo-) Gricean reasoning because, by definition, the forms that are in competition have the same assertive component (Percus 2006). We suggest, however that parts of Maximize Presupposition might be reducible to the theory of scalar implicatures. The analysis is a direct application of Stalnaker 2002: speech act participants are generally uncertain about what the Common Ground is; a speaker who asserts a sentence with presupposition p thereby indicates that he believes that it is common ground that p. If the addressee also believes that p, this suffices to make it common ground that p. Thus, even in the absence of any process of accommodation, more information is produced by a sentence S with presupposition p than with an alternative S’ that has the same assertive component but a weaker presupposition. If S and S’ form a scale, one should thus utter S rather than S’ whenever this is possible.

In (1), the talking event described in the matrix clause is elaborated on in the following adjunct: the arguing about the data and the theories makes up the content of the talking referred to in the matrix clause. In (2), on the other hand, the events (or sub-events of a single complex event) described are in a causeconsequence relation, a result of the action described in the matrix clause being that the porcelain vase breaks. These two examples illustrate a central issue for the interpretation of -ing adjuncts: the relation holding between the event described in the adjunct and the event described in the matrix clause is not always the same – in fact, as we’ll see, there is quite a range of possibilities. So the question is: how is the particular relation arrived at?

Condoravdi shows that the ignorance component is not a presupposition: • Ignorance is not signalled as taken for granted • No presupposition denial • No presupposition filtering So, what else could I have reached for in 2000? Not much, because I tend to buy my tools on the open market rather than develop them myself.

The paper focuses on the difference between eventconditionals and premiseconditionals. An eventconditional contributes to event structure: it modifies the main clause event; a premiseconditional structures the discourse: it makes manifest a proposition that is the privileged context for the processing of the associated clause. The two types of conditional clauses will be shown to differ both in terms of their 'external syntax' and in terms of their 'internal syntax'. The peripheral structure of event conditionals will be shown to lack the functional head Force, which encodes illocutionary force. Event conditionals are merged inside the IP of the matrix clause. Premiseconditionals contain the head Force and they are merged outside the associated CP.

The syntactic domain of tense is the clause: tense appears in some form in every clause of a tensed language. Semantic interpretation of tense requires information from context, however. This has been clear at least since Partee's 1984 demonstration of the anaphoric properties of tense. In this talk I will show that the facts about context are quite complex, perhaps more so than has been appreciated. There are three patterns of tense interpretation, depending on the type of discourse context in which a clause appears. I will introduce the notion of discourse mode to account for the different types of context.1 I offer an interpretation of tense in Discourse Representation Theory, a framework which is organized to deal with information from the context. I also show that a syntactically based theory can handle contextually-based tense interpretation. In §1 I set out the basic analysis of tense and show how it applies to sentences in isolation. §2 discusses types of discourse context and patterns of tense interpretation; §3 considers the formal analysis of tense; §4 concludes with a summary and a prediction about temporal interpretation in tenseless languages.

Conservativity in generalized quantifiers is linked to presupposition filtering, under a propositions-as-types analysis extended with dependent quantifiers. That analysis is underpinned by modeltheoretically interpretable proofs which inhabit propositions they prove, thereby providing objects for quantification and hooks for anaphora.

Writers on presupposition, and on the ‘‘projection problem’’ of determining the presuppositions of compound sentences from their component clauses, traditionally assign presuppositions to each clause in isolation. I argue that many presuppositional elements are anaphoric to previous discourse or contextual elements. In compound sentences, these can be other clauses of the sentence. We thus need a theory of presuppositional anaphora, analogous to the corresponding pronominal theory.

This paper discusses the semantically parenthetical use of clauseembedding verbs such as see, hear, think, believe, discover and know. When embedding verbs are used in this way, the embedded clause carries the main point of the utterance, while the main clause serves some discourse function. Frequently, this function is evidential, with the parenthetical verb carrying information about the source and reliability of the embedded claim, or about the speaker’s emotional orientation to it. Other functions of parenthetical uses of verbs are discussed.

Conditional information can be equally asserted in the forms if p, then q (e.g., ?if I am ill, I will miss work tomorrow?) and q, if p (e.g., ?I will miss work tomorrow, if I am ill?). While this type of clause order manipulation has previously been found to have no influence on the ultimate conclusions participants draw from conditional rules, we used self-paced reading to examine how it affects the real time incremental processing of everyday conditional statements. Experiment 1 revealed that clause order interacts with presuppositional congruency as readers hypothetically represent counterfactual statements. When if p, then q counterfactuals contained a presupposition that was incongruent with prior context, these statements took longer to read than when the presupposition was congruent, but for q, if p conditionals there was no such congruency effect. Experiment 2 revealed that reading times were influenced by the subjective probability of an indicative conditional regardless of clause order, with a penalty observed for low-probability statements relative to high-probability statements in both conditional clause orders. These data reveal a dissociation whereby clause order mediates the effect of suppositional congruency on reading times, but does not mediate the effect of subjective probability.