Be Articulate: A Pragmatic Theory of Presupposition Projection
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Theoretical Linguistics 34 (3):157-212 (2008)
: In the 1980s, the analysis of presupposition projection contributed to a ‘dynamic turn’ in semantics: the classical notion of meanings as truth conditions was replaced with a dynamic notion of meanings as Context Change Potentials. We argue that this move was misguided, and we offer an alternative in which presupposition projection follows from the combination of a fully classical semantics and a new pragmatic principle, which we call Be Articulate. This principle requires that a meaning pp’ conceptualized as involving a pre-condition p should be articulated as … … rather than as … pp’ …, unless the full conjunction is ruled out because the first or the second conjunct is semantically idle. In particular, … … is infelicitous - and hence … pp’ … is acceptable - if one can determine as soon as p and is uttered that no matter how the sentence ends these words could be eliminated without affecting its contextual meaning. An equivalence theorem guarantees that this condition suffices to derive Heim’s results in almost all cases. Extensions of the condition lead to several new predictions, in particular concerning some ‘symmetric readings’, as well as presupposition projection in quantified structures, which displays a complex interaction between the nature of the trigger and the monotonicity of the quantifier
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Daniel Rothschild & Seth Yalcin (forthcoming). Three Notions of Dynamicness in Language. Linguistics and Philosophy:1-23.
Emmanuel Chemla (2009). Presuppositions of Quantified Sentences: Experimental Data. [REVIEW] Natural Language Semantics 17 (4):299-340.
Nathan Klinedinst & Daniel Rothschild (2012). Connectives Without Truth Tables. Natural Language Semantics 20 (2):137-175.
Philippe Schlenker (2012). Maximize Presupposition and Gricean Reasoning. Natural Language Semantics 20 (4):391-429.
Similar books and articles
Irene Heim (1990). Presupposition Projection. In Rob van der Sandt (ed.), Reader for the Nijmegen Workshop on Presupposition, Lexical Meaning, and Discourse Processes. University of Nijmegen
Michela Ippolito (2006). Semantic Composition and Presupposition Projection in Subjunctive Conditionals. Linguistics and Philosophy 29 (6):631 - 672.
Philippe Schlenker (2010). Local Contexts and Local Meanings. Philosophical Studies 151 (1):115--142.
Daniel Rothschild (2011). Explaining Presupposition Projection with Dynamic Semantics. Semantics and Pragmatics 4 (3):1-43.
Jan van Eijck & Christina Unger (2007). The Epistemics of Presupposition Projection. In Dekker Aloni (ed.), Proceedings of the Sixteenth Amsterdam Colloquium. 235-240.
Philippe Schlenker (2007). Anti-Dynamics: Presupposition Projection Without Dynamic Semantics. [REVIEW] Journal of Logic, Language and Information 16 (3):325--356.
P. Schlenker (2010). Presuppositions and Local Contexts. Mind 119 (474):377-391.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads47 ( #89,995 of 1,907,520 )
Recent downloads (6 months)6 ( #127,771 of 1,907,520 )
How can I increase my downloads?