Presupposition and accommodation: Understanding the Stalnakerian picture. Semantics & Pragmatics, 2, Article 3, 1–78. Presupposition projection: the new debate. Presupposition projection: Explanatory strategies. Be Articulate: A pragmatic theory of presupposition projection. Journal of Logic, Language and Information, 16(3), 325–356. Anti-dynamics: presupposition projection without dynamic semantics. Presupposition projection in dynamic semantics. (Eds.), Proceedings of the second west coast conference on formal linguistics (pp. On the projection problem for presuppositions. Presupposition and conversational implicature. Institut Jean-Nicod, LSCP & NYU (manuscript). symmetric accounts of presupposition projection: An experimental approach. Natural Language Semantics, 17(4), 299–340.Ĭhemla, E., & Schlenker, P. Presuppositions of quantified sentences: Experimental data. Tense, temporal reference and tense logic. Notes on presupposition and order of composition. Presupposition triggering from alternatives. Oxford University (manuscript).Ībusch, D. In this case, then, the nature of the embedded proposition suffices to yield a presuppositional contrast between (i) and (ii).Ībrusan, M. By contrast, they may well tell their mistresses that they will leave their respective wives without thereby intending to do so. ≠> Each of these ten men will leave his wife within a year.Įven unfaithful men don’t typically announce that they have been fired unless this is indeed so. (Wisely) None of ten men has announced to his mistress that he will leave his wife within a year Has Smith (foolishly) announced to his mistress that he will leave his wife within a year?ĭ. (Wisely) Smith hasn’t announced to his mistress that he will leave his wife within a year.Ĭ. ≠> Smith will leave his wife within a yearī. Smith has announced to his mistress that he will leave his wife within a year. None of ten men has announced to his mistress that he is fired.Ī. Has Smith announced to his mistress that he is fired?ĭ. Smith hasn’t announced to his mistress that he is fired.Ĭ. Smith has announced to his mistress that he is fired.ī. It seems to me that the examples in (i) are normally understood as presuppositional, while those in (ii) aren’t:Ī. Suppose that we are discussing a group of men who all have mistresses, but whose reliability is otherwise unknown. I believe that it is not necessary to manipulate the degree of reliability of the subject to modify the presuppositional facts. Without giving an analysis of the latter notion, we note that this architecture implies that presuppositions should be triggered on the basis of the meaning that an expression has relative to its local context (what we call its ‘local meaning’) we sketch some possible consequences of this analysis. In a nutshell, we suggest that a presupposition is triggered when the semantic contribution of an expression to its local context is in some sense ‘heterogeneous’. Second, we speculate that local contexts might prove necessary (though by no means sufficient) to understand how some presuppositions are triggered. We preserve the idea that local contexts are computed by a pragmatic mechanism that aggregates the information that follows from an incomplete sentence given the global context but we crucially rely on a modified notion of entailment (‘R-entailment’), whose plausibility should be assessed on independent grounds. First, we offer a reconstruction of ‘local contexts’ which circumvents some of the difficulties faced by Stalnaker’s original analysis. We discuss possible extensions of both claims. But despite various attempts, the definition of a precise ‘triggering algorithm’ has remained somewhat elusive. The second claim was that some instances of presupposition generation should also be explained in pragmatic terms. Due to conceptual and technical difficulties, however, the latter notion was reinterpreted in purely semantic terms within ‘dynamic semantics’ (Heim 1983). The most influential one was that presupposition projection is computed by a pragmatic mechanism based on a notion of ‘local context’. Stalnaker ( 1978) made two seminal claims about presuppositions.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |