The Presuppositions of Soft Triggers are Obligatory Scalar Implicatures

Presupposition triggers can be divided in two groups, ‘soft’ and ‘hard,’ based on whether the presuppositions they give rise to are easily defeasible and whether they project uniformly in quantificational sentences (Abusch 2002, 2010, Charlow 2009). Recently, two ideas have been put forward in the literature in connection to this problem. First, soft triggers should be thought of as non-presuppositional items associated with lexical alternatives (Abusch 2002, 2010). Second, the projection behavior of presuppositions can be accounted for by a theory based on scalar implicatures (Chemla 2009a, Chemla 2010). In this paper, building on these two ideas, I propose a scalar approach to the presuppositions of soft triggers. The contribution of the proposal is twofold. First, I propose a theory of soft presuppositions as scalar implicatures that provides an account of their behaviour in quantificational sentences that makes more accurate predictions than Chemla’s (2009a), Chemla’s (2010) and Abusch’s (2010) proposals and other non-alternative-based theories that I am aware of. Second, I develop an account of the differences between soft and hard presuppositions, on the one hand, and the similarities between soft presuppositions and scalar implicatures, on the other. Finally, the proposed approach also reduces the pattern of presupposition suspension to independent principles needed in the theory of scalar implicatures.

[1]  Emiel Krahmer,et al.  A Partial Account of Presupposition Projection , 2001, J. Log. Lang. Inf..

[2]  Jacopo Romoli,et al.  The Presuppositions of Soft Triggers aren't Presuppositions , 2011 .

[3]  B. R. George,et al.  Presupposition Repairs : a Static , Trivalent Approach to Predicting Projection ∗ , 2008 .

[4]  Giorgio Magri Another argument for embedded scalar implicatures based on oddness in downward entailing environments , 2011 .

[5]  Rune B. Lyngsø,et al.  Lecture Notes I , 2008 .

[6]  Robert van Rooy A modal analysis of modal subordination , 2003 .

[7]  Dorit Abusch,et al.  Presupposition Triggering from Alternatives , 2010, J. Semant..

[8]  Gerald Gazdar,et al.  Pragmatics: Implicature, Presupposition, and Logical Form , 1978 .

[9]  Márta Abrusán,et al.  Triggering verbal presuppositions , 2010 .

[10]  Robert van Rooij Presupposition: an (un)common attitude , 2010 .

[11]  David Beaver,et al.  3: Have You Noticed that Your Belly Button Lint Color is Related to the Color of Your Clothing? , 2002 .

[12]  Michael Franke,et al.  Signal to act : game theory in pragmatics , 2009 .

[13]  Robert van Rooy Presupposition : An ( un ) common attitude ? , 2001 .

[14]  Giorgio Magri A theory of individual-level predicates based on blind mandatory scalar implicatures , 2009 .

[15]  Mandy Simons,et al.  On the Conversational Basis of Some Presuppositions , 2013 .

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

[17]  D. Fox Free Choice and the Theory of Scalar Implicatures , 2007 .

[18]  Robert van Rooij,et al.  Pragmatic Meaning and Non-monotonic Reasoning: The Case of Exhaustive Interpretation , 2006 .

[19]  Gennaro Chierchia,et al.  Meaning and Grammar: An Introduction to Semantics , 1990 .

[20]  Danny Fox,et al.  Presupposition projection from quantificational sentences: trivalence, local accommodation, and presupposition strengthening , 2013 .

[21]  S. Soames ESSAY ONE. A Projection Problem for Speaker Presuppositions , 2008 .

[22]  Jeroen Groenendijk,et al.  Semantic analysis of wh-complements , 1982 .

[23]  Edit Doron,et al.  Verbless predicates in Hebrew , 1992 .

[24]  E. Chemla Presuppositions of quantified sentences: experimental data , 2009 .

[25]  David I. Beaver,et al.  What projects and why , 2010 .

[26]  B. Geurts Presuppositions and Pronouns , 1999 .

[27]  Laurence R. Horn Drawing the Boundaries of Meaning : Neo-Gricean Studies in Pragmatics and Semantics in Honor of , 2010 .

[28]  K. Fintel Would You Believe It? The King of France is Back! (Presuppositions and Truth-Value Intuitions) , 2001 .

[29]  Robert Stalnaker,et al.  On the Representation of Context , 1996, J. Log. Lang. Inf..

[30]  Márta Abrusán,et al.  Predicting the presuppositions of soft triggers , 2011 .

[31]  Michael Wagner Contrasts and Positions in Information Structure: Focus and givenness: a unified approach , 2012 .

[32]  Ivona Kučerová,et al.  Contrasts and positions in information structure , 2012 .

[33]  Ruth Kempson,et al.  Presupposition and the delimitation of semantics , 1975 .

[34]  Raj Singh,et al.  Symmetric and Interacting Alternatives for Implicature and Accommodation∗ , 2009 .

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

[36]  Benjamin Spector Aspects of the Pragmatics of Plural Morphology: On Higher-Order Implicatures , 2007 .

[37]  Jacopo Romoli,et al.  Soft but Strong. Neg-Raising, Soft Triggers, and Exhaustification , 2012 .

[38]  K. Fintel The Formal Semantics of Grammaticalization , 1995 .

[39]  Emmanuel Chemla,et al.  Processing presuppositions: Dynamic semantics vs pragmatic enrichment , 2013 .

[40]  Philippe Schlenker,et al.  Presupposition Projection: the New Debate , 2008 .

[41]  D. Fox,et al.  On the characterization of alternatives , 2011 .

[42]  Robert van Rooij,et al.  Strengthening Conditional Presuppositions , 2007, J. Semant..

[43]  Uli Sauerland,et al.  Scalar Implicatures in Complex Sentences , 2004 .

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

[45]  Lauri Karttunen,et al.  Some observations on factivity , 1971 .

[46]  Danny Fox,et al.  Two short notes on Schlenker's theory of presupposition projection , 2008 .

[47]  Jacopo Romoli,et al.  A scalar implicature-based approach to neg-raising , 2012 .

[48]  Dorit Abusch,et al.  Lexical Alternatives as a Source of Pragmatic Presuppositions , 2002 .

[49]  Raj Singh,et al.  On the interpretation of disjunction: asymmetric, incremental, and eager for inconsistency , 2008 .

[50]  Jeffrey Lidz,et al.  Meaning and Context in Children's Understanding of Gradable Adjectives , 2010, J. Semant..

[51]  Corien Bary,et al.  Temporal anaphora across and inside sentences: The function of participles , 2011 .

[52]  Philippe Schlenker,et al.  Local contexts and local meanings , 2010 .

[53]  Mats Rooth A theory of focus interpretation , 1992, Natural Language Semantics.

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

[55]  G. Chierchia,et al.  The Grammatical View of Scalar Implicatures and the Relationship between Semantics and Pragmatics , 2008 .

[56]  Laurence R. Horn,et al.  On the semantic properties of logical operators in english' reproduced by the indiana university lin , 1972 .

[57]  Michael Wagner,et al.  1 Focus and Givenness : A Unified Approach , 2010 .

[58]  Gennaro Chierchia,et al.  Meaning and grammar (2nd ed.): an introduction to semantics , 2000 .

[59]  Annett Baier,et al.  Logic In Grammar Polarity Free Choice And Intervention , 2016 .

[60]  Deirdre Wilson,et al.  PRESUPPOSITION, ASSERTION, AND LEXICAL ITEMS , 1975 .

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

[62]  C. Clifton,et al.  On the role of entailment patterns and scalar implicatures in the processing of numerals. , 2009, Journal of Memory and Language.

[63]  E. Chemla Similarity: towards a unified account of scalar implicatures, free choice permission and presupposition projection , 2008 .