David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Natural Language Semantics 20 (4):391-429 (2012)
Recent semantic research has made increasing use of a principle, Maximize Presupposition, which requires that under certain circumstances the strongest possible presupposition be marked. This principle is generally taken to be irreducible to standard Gricean reasoning because the forms that are in competition have the same assertive content. We suggest, however, that Maximize Presupposition might be reducible to the theory of scalar implicatures. (i)First, we consider a special case: the speaker utters a sentence with a presupposition p which is not initially taken for granted by the addressee, but the latter takes the speaker to be an authority on the matter. Signaling the presupposition provides new information to the addressee; but it also follows from the logic of presupposition qua common belief that the presupposition is thereby satisfied (Stalnaker, Ling Philos 25(5–6):701–721, 2002). (ii) Second, we generalize this solution to other cases. We assume that even when p is common belief, there is a very small chance that the addressee might forget it (‘Fallibility’); in such cases, marking a presupposition will turn out to generate new information by re-establishing part of the original context. We also adopt from Raj Singh (Nat Lang Semantics 19(2):149–168, 2011) the hypothesis that presupposition maximization is computed relative to local contexts—and we assume that these too are subject to Fallibility; this accounts for cases in which the information that justifies the presupposition is linguistically provided. (iii) Finally, we suggest that our assumptions have benefits in the domain of implicatures: they make it possible to reinterpret Magri’s ‘blind’ (i.e. context-insensitive) implicatures as context-sensitive implicatures which just happen to be misleading.
|Keywords||Presupposition Implicatures Pragmatics Antipresuppositions Implicated presuppositions|
|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
Robert Stalnaker (2002). Common Ground. Linguistics and Philosophy 25 (5-6):701-721.
Philippe Schlenker (2003). A Plea for Monsters. Linguistics and Philosophy 26 (1):29-120.
Jason Stanley (2004). On the Linguistic Basis for Contextualism. Philosophical Studies 119 (1-2):119-146.
Citations of this work BETA
Daniel J. Grodner, Natalie M. Klein, Kathleen M. Carbary & Michael K. Tanenhaus (2010). Some,” and Possibly All, Scalar Inferences Are Not Delayed: Evidence for Immediate Pragmatic Enrichment”. Cognition 116 (1):42-55.
Similar books and articles
David S. Schwarz (1977). On Pragmatic Presupposition. Linguistics and Philosophy 1 (2):247 - 257.
Noel Burton-Roberts (1989). The Limits to Debate: A Revised Theory of Semantic Presupposition. Cambridge University Press.
Philippe Schlenker (2008). Be Articulate: A Pragmatic Theory of Presupposition Projection. Theoretical Linguistics 34 (3):157-212.
Barbara Abbott (2008). Presuppositions and Common Ground. Linguistics and Philosophy 31 (5):523-538.
Jan van Eijck & Christina Unger (2007). The Epistemics of Presupposition Projection. In Dekker Aloni (ed.), Proceedings of the Sixteenth Amsterdam Colloquium. 235-240.
Mandy Simons (2003). Presupposition and Accommodation: Understanding the Stalnakerian Picture. [REVIEW] Philosophical Studies 112 (3):251 - 278.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads43 ( #94,321 of 1,792,848 )
Recent downloads (6 months)7 ( #119,978 of 1,792,848 )
How can I increase my downloads?