Graduate studies at Western
Linguistics and Philosophy 1 (2):247 - 257 (1977)
|Abstract||I argue that (a) the phenomenon characteristic of pragmatic presupposition, is distinct from (b) the phenomenon characteristic of semantic presupposition, and that there are sentences exhibiting (a) alone. I apply this to Stalnaker's defense of van Fraassen's theory of semantic presupposition against Karttunen. I show that, since Stalmaker fails to distinguish (a) from (b), this defense amounts to an unsuccessful attempt to explain pragmatically the supposed instances of (b) in Karttunen's counter-examples. I observe that, given the distinction between (a) and (b), we can salvage from Stalnaker the strategy of discounting certain of Karttunen's counter-examples which exhibit not (b) but merely (a).|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Stanley Peters (1979). A Truth-Conditional Formulation of Karttunen's Account of Presupposition. Synthese 40 (2):301-316.
Mandy Simons (2003). Presupposition and Accommodation: Understanding the Stalnakerian Picture. [REVIEW] Philosophical Studies 112 (3):251 - 278.
Philippe Schlenker (2010). Local Contexts and Local Meanings. Philosophical Studies 151 (1):115--142.
Philippe Schlenker (2012). Maximize Presupposition and Gricean Reasoning. Natural Language Semantics 20 (4):391-429.
Robyn Carston (1998). Negation, `Presupposition' and the Semantics/ Pragmatics Distinction. Journal of Linguistics 34:309-350.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads24 ( #58,124 of 757,546 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,427 of 757,546 )
How can I increase my downloads?