A Modal Analysis of Presupposition and Modal Subordination

In this paper I will give a modal two-dimensional analysis of presupposition and modal subordination. I will think of presupposition as a non-veridical propositional attitude. This allows me to evaluate what is presupposed and what is asserted at different dimensions without getting into the binding problem. What is presupposed will be represented by an accessibility relation between possible worlds. The major part of the paper consists of a proposal to account for the dependence of the interpretation of modal expressions, i.e. modal subordination, in terms of an accessibility relation as well. Moreover, I show how such an analysis can be extended from the propositional to the predicate logical level.

[1]  J. Peregrin.  LINGUISTICS AND PHILOSOPHY , 1998 .

[2]  木村 和夫.  Pragmatics , 1997, Language Teaching.

[3]  H. Savin,et al.  The projection problem for presuppositions , 1971 .

[4]  H.C.M. de Swart,et al.  Logic, Game Theory and Social Choice , 1999 .

[5]  David S. Schwarz.  On pragmatic presupposition , 1977, Linguistics and Philosophy.

[6]  Irene Heim,et al.  The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases : a dissertation , 1982 .

[7]  Robert A.M. van Rooyy.  Modal Subordination in Questions , 2007 .

[8]  Robert Stalnaker,et al.  Belief Attribution and Context , 1999 .

[9]  Jeroen Groenendijk,et al.  Dynamic predicate logic , 1991 .

[10]  Rob A. von der Sandt.  Context and presupposition , 1988 .

[11]  Rodger Kibble,et al.  Dynamics of Epistemic Modality and Anaphora , 1994 .

[12]  Rob A. van der Sandt,et al.  Presupposition Projection as Anaphora Resolution , 1992, J. Semant..

[13]  R. A. Nelson,et al.  Common ground. , 2020, Lancet.

[14]  Laurence R. Horn.  A Natural History of Negation , 1989 .

[15]  Irene Heim,et al.  Presupposition Projection and the Semantics of Attitude Verbs , 1992, J. Semant..

[16]  H. Kamp,et al.  On Context Dependence In Modal Constructions , 1997 .

[17]  Nicholas Asher,et al.  A typology for attitude verbs and their anaphoric properties , 1987 .

[18]  Hans G. Herzberger,et al.  Dimensions of truth , 1973, J. Philos. Log..

[19]  Some analyses of pro-attitudes , 1999 .

[20]  Frank Veltman,et al.  Defaults in update semantics , 1996, J. Philos. Log..

[21]  J. Gerbrandy.  Bisimulations on Planet Kripke , 1999 .

[22]  Jeroen Groenendijk,et al.  Formal methods in the study of language , 1983 .

[23]  David Ian Beaver,et al.  Presupposition and assertion in dynamic semantics : Part (I) The presupposition : a critical review of presupposition theory ; Part (II) The assertion : what comes first in dynamic semantics , 1995 .

[24]  LAURI KARTTUNEN,et al.  PRESUPPOSITION AND LINGUISTIC CONTEXT , 1974 .

[25]  Craige Roberts.  Modal subordination and pronominal anaphora in discourse , 1989 .

[26]  R.A.M. van Rooij,et al.  Exhaustivity in dynamic semantics; referential and descriptive pronouns , 2001 .

[27]  Robert van Rooy,et al.  Exhaustivity In Dynamic Semantics; Referential And Descriptive Pronouns , 2001 .

[28]  Robert van Rooy,et al.  Some analyses of pro-attitudes , 1999 .

[29]  B. Geurts.  Presuppositions and Anaphors in Attitude Contexts , 1998 .

[30]  Wolfgang Lenski,et al.  Towards a Theory of Information , 2004, Logic versus Approximation.

[31]  Henk Zeevat,et al.  Presupposition and Accommodation in Update Semantics , 1992, J. Semant..

[32]  David I. Beaver.  Presupposition and Assertion in Dynamic Semantics , 2001 .

[33]  Dov M. Gabbay,et al.  Handbook of Philosophical Logic , 2002 .