|Abstract||The BPR assumes that we already know how sentences are partitioned into focused and backgrounded material, and this is quite legitimate, given the literature on the topic (see e.g. Krifka (1991), von Stechow (1991)). If the BPR was true, no more would have to be said about the meaning of focus. The behavior of whatever inferences are generated by backgrounding could be taken care of by theories dealing with the projection of presuppositions of the familiar kind, the presuppositions of definite descriptions, clefts, or factives, for example. This is a non-trivial and interesting claim.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Only published papers are available at libraries|
Similar books and articles
Alex Lascarides (1998). The Semantics and Pragmatics of Presupposition. Journal of Semantics 15 (3):239-300.
H. van de Sandt (2008). The Didache Redefining its Jewish Identity in the Light of Gentiles Joining the Community. In van der Horst, Pieter Willem, Alberdina Houtman, Albert de Jong, van de Weg & Magdalena Wilhelmina Misset (eds.), Empsychoi Logoi--Religious Innovations in Antiquity: Studies in Honour of Pieter Willem van der Horst. Brill.
Rob van der Sandt (ed.) (1990). Reader for the Nijmegen Workshop on Presupposition, Lexical Meaning, and Discourse Processes. University of Nijmegen.
Rob A. van Der Sandt (1992). Presupposition Projection as Anaphora Resolution. Journal of Semantics 9 (4):333-377.
Emar Maier & Rob van der Sandt (2003). Denial and Correction in Layered DRT. In Proceedings of Diabruck'03.
Emar Maier (2009). Proper Names and Indexicals Trigger Rigid Presuppositions. Journal of Semantics 26 (3):253-315.
Christopher Gauker (2008). Against Accommodation: Heim, van der Sandt, and the Presupposition Projection Problem. Noûs 42 (1):171 - 205.
Added to index2009-09-06
Total downloads34 ( #40,555 of 722,863 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #60,917 of 722,863 )
How can I increase my downloads?