Presupposition Projection: the New Debate

A powerful intuition behind much recent research is that a presupposition must be satisfied in its context of evaluation. The relevant notion of context is, in Stalnaker’s terminology (Stalnaker 1978), the ‘context set’, which encodes what the speech act participants take for granted (we will say ‘context’ for short). But the simplest version of this analysis faces immediate difficulties with complex sentences: John is incompetent and he knows that he is does not require that the speech act participants already take for granted that John is incompetent, since this proposition is asserted, not presupposed. The dynamic approach solves the problem by postulating that the second conjunct is evaluated with respect to a local context, obtained by updating the global one with the content of the first conjunct; this explains why the presupposition of the second conjunct is in this case automatically satisfied. This analysis is captured by the dynamic rule stated in (1): the update of a context C with a conjunction is the successive update of C with each conjunct.

[1]  D. Beaver,et al.  As brief as possible (but no briefer) , 2008 .

[2]  Philippe Schlenker,et al.  Presupposition projection: Explanatory strategies , 2008 .

[3]  Emmanuel Chemla,et al.  Transparency theory: Empirical issues and psycholinguistic routes , 2008 .

[4]  David DeVault,et al.  Enlightened Update: A Computational Architecture for Presupposition and Other Pragmatic Phenomena , 2006 .

[5]  S. Peters A truth-conditional formulation of Karttunen's account of presupposition , 1979, Synthese.

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

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

[8]  Philippe Schlenker,et al.  Anti-dynamics: presupposition projection without dynamic semantics , 2007, J. Log. Lang. Inf..

[9]  Daniel Rothschild,et al.  Transparency Theory and its dynamic alternatives: Commentary on “Be Articulate” , 2008 .

[10]  Emiel Krahmer,et al.  Why Be Articulate? Two ways to look at the Transparency Theory , 2008 .

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

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

[13]  Jan van Eijck,et al.  The Epistemics of Presupposition Projection , 2007 .

[14]  P. Unger,et al.  Semantics and Philosophy , 1974 .

[15]  Jae-Il Yeom,et al.  On Presupposition Projection , 2003 .

[16]  J. van der Hoeve,et al.  ACCOMMODATION* , 1924, British Journal of Ophthalmology.

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

[18]  David I. Beaver When Variables Don't Vary Enough , 1994 .

[19]  Benjamin R. George,et al.  Predicting Presupposition Projection : some alternatives in the strong Kleene tradition ∗ , 2008 .

[20]  Philippe Schlenker,et al.  Be Articulate: A pragmatic theory of presupposition projection , 2008 .

[21]  Steven Davis Pragmatics : a reader , 1991 .

[22]  Manfred Krifka,et al.  For a Structured Meaning Account of Questions and Answers , 2001 .

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

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

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

[26]  E. Chemla Présuppositions et implicatures scalaires : études formelles et expérimentales , 2008 .

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

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