Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Maximize Presupposition! and local contexts

  • Published:
Natural Language Semantics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Maximize Presupposition! is an economy condition that adjudicates between contextually equivalent competing structures. Building on data discovered by O. Percus, I will argue that the constraint is checked in the local contexts of embedded constituents. I will argue that this architecture leads to a general solution to the problem of antipresupposition projection, and also allows I. Heim’s ‘Novelty/Familiarity Condition’ to be eliminated as a constraint on operations of context change.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Amsili, Pascal, and Claire Beyssade. 2006. Compulsory presupposition in discourse. In Proceedings of the second workshop on constraints in discourse, Maynooth National University.

  • Barwise, Jon. 1987. Noun phrases, generalized quantifiers, and anaphora. In Generalized quantifiers: Linguistic and logical approaches, ed. Peter Gardenfors, 1–29. Dordrecht: Reidel.

  • Beaver David (2001) Presupposition and assertion in dynamic semantics. CSLI Publications, Stanford

    Google Scholar 

  • Chemla, Emmanuel. 2007. French both: A gap in the theory of antipresupposition. Snippets 15: 4–5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chemla Emmanuel (2008) An epistemic step for anti-presuppositions. Journal of Semantics 25: 141–173

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chemla, Emmanuel. 2009. Similarity: Towards a unified account of scalar implicatures, free choice permission, and presupposition projection. Under revision for Semantics and Pragmatics.

  • Chemla, Emmanuel, and Philippe Schlenker. 2009. Incremental vs. symmetric accounts of presupposition projection: An experimental approach. Manuscript, IJN and NYU.

  • Chemla, Emmanuel, and Benjamin Spector. 2009. Experimental evidence for embedded scalar implicatures. Journal of Semantics, in press.

  • Chierchia, Gennaro. 2004. Scalar implicatures, polarity phenomena, and the syntax-pragmatics interface. In Structures and beyond, ed. A. Belleti, 39–103. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Chierchia, Gennaro, Danny Fox, and Benjamin Spector. (to appear). The grammatical view of scalar implicatures and the relationship between semantics and pragmatics. In Handbook of semantics ed. Paul Portner, Claudia Maienborn, and Klaus von Heusinger. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

  • Cohen, L. Jonathan. 1971. Some remarks on Grice’s views about the logical particles of natural language. In Pragmatics of natural Languages, ed. Yehoshua Bar-Hillel, 50–68. Dordrecht: Reidel.

  • Embick David, Alec Marantz (2008) Architecture and blocking. Linguistic Inquiry 39: 1–53

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fox, Danny, 2007. Free choice disjunction and the theory of scalar implicature. In Presupposition and implicature in compositional semantics, ed. Uli Sauerland and Penka Stateva, 71–120. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

  • Fox Danny (2008) Two short notes on Schlenker’s theory of presupposition projection. Theoretical Linguistics 34: 237–252

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geurts Bart (1999) Presuppositions and pronouns. Elsevier, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  • Geurts, Bart, and Nausicaa Pouscoulous. 2009. Embedded implicatures?!? Semantics and Pragmatics 2: 1–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, Edward. 2000. The dependency locality theory: A distance-based measure of linguistic complexity. In Image, language, brain, ed. Y. Miyashita, A. Marantz, and W. O’Neil, 95–126. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

  • Grice, H.P. 1967. Logic and conversation. William James Lectures. Manuscript, Harvard University.

  • Groenendijk Jeroen, Martin Stokhof (1991) Dynamic predicate logic. Linguistics and Philosophy 14: 39–100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hawkins John A (1978) Definiteness and indefiniteness: A study in grammaticality prediction. Croon Helm, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Heim, Irene. 1982. On the semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.

  • Heim, Irene. 1983a. File change semantics and the familiarity theory of definiteness. In Meaning, use, and the interpretation of language, ed. Rainer Bäuerle, Christoph Schwarze, and Arnim von Stechow, 164–190. Berlin: de Gruyter.

  • Heim, Irene. 1983b. On the projection problem for presuppositions. In WCCFL 2, ed. M. Barlow et al., 114–125. Stanford: CSLI Publications.

  • Heim, Irene. 1990. Presupposition projection. In Reader for the Nijmegen workshop on Presupposition, lexical meaning and discourse processes. Nijmegen: University of Nijmegen.

  • Heim, Irene. 1991. Artikel und Definitheit. In Semantics: An International Handbook of Contemporary Research. 487–535: Berlin: de Gruyter.

  • Heim, Irene. 1997. Predicates or formulas? Evidence from VP-ellipsis. In Proceedings of SALT 7, ed. Aaron Lawon and Eund Cho, 197–221. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.

  • Heim Irene, Angelika Kratzer (1998) Semantics in generative grammar. Blackwell, Malden

    Google Scholar 

  • Horn, Laurence R. 1972. On the semantic properties of logical operators in English. PhD dissertation, UCLA.

  • Karttunen Lauri (1973) Presuppositions of compound sentences. Linguistic Inquiry 4: 167–193

    Google Scholar 

  • Karttunen Lauri (1974) Presupposition and linguistic context. Theoretical Linguistics 1: 181–193

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karttunen, Lauri, and Stanley Peters. 1979. Conventional implicatures in Montague Grammar. In Syntax and semantics 11: Presupposition, ed. Choon-Kyu Oh and David Dineen, 1–56. New York: Academic Press.

  • Katzir Roni (2007) Structurally defined alternatives. Linguistics and Philosophy 30: 669–690

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • LaCasse, Nicolas R. 2008. Constraints on connectives and quantifiers: Solving the overgeneration problem of dynamic semantics. Manuscript, UCLA.

  • Magri Giorgio (2009) A theory of individual level predicates based on blind mandatory scalar implicatures. Natural Language Semantics 17: 245–297

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Percus, Orin. 2006. Antipresuppositions. In Theoretical and empirical studies of reference and anaphora: Toward the establishment of generative grammar as an empiricial science, ed. Ayumi Uyema, 52–73. Report of the Grant-Aid for Scientific Research (B), Project No. 15320052, Japan Society for the Promotion of Science.

  • Rooth Mats. (1992) A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1: 75–116

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rothschild, Daniel. 2008. Making dynamic semantics explanatory: Presupposition projection. Manuscript, Columbia University.

  • Russell Benjamin (2006) Against grammatical computation of scalar implicatures. Journal of Semantics 23: 361–382

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sauerland Uli. (2002) The present tense is vacuous. Snippets 6: 12–13

    Google Scholar 

  • Sauerland, Uli. 2003a. Implicated presuppositions. Handout for a talk presented at the University of Milan Bicocca.

  • Sauerland, Uli. 2003b. A new semantics for number. In Proceedings of SALT 13, R. Young and Y. Zhou, 258–275. Ithaca. NY: CLC Publications.

  • Sauerland Uli. (2004) Scalar implicatures in complex sentences. Linguistics and Philosophy 27: 367–391

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sauerland, Uli. 2008. Implicated presuppositions. In Sentence and Context: Language, context, and cognition, ed. A. Steube. Berlin: de Gruyter.

  • Schlenker, Philippe. 2006. Maximize presupposition and Gricean reasoning. Manuscript, UCLA and Institute Jean-Nicod, Paris.

  • Schlenker Philippe (2007) Anti-dynamics: Presupposition projection without dynamic semantics. Journal of Logic, Language, and Information 16: 325–356

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schlenker, Philippe. 2008. Be Articulate! A pragmatic theory of presupposition projection. Theoretical Linguistics 34: 157–212.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schlenker Philippe (2009) Local contexts. Semantics and Pragmatics 2: 1–78

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singh, Raj. 2008. Modularity and locality in interpretation. PhD dissertation, MIT.

  • Singh, Raj. 2009. Maximize Presupposition! and informationally encapsulated implicatures. In Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 13, ed. Arndt Riester and Torgrim Solstad, 513–526. Berlin: ZAS.

  • Singh, Raj. 2010. Oddness and ignorance inferences. Handout of talk presented at MOSAIC 2, McGill University, Montréal.

  • Singh, Raj, Evelina Federenko, and Edward Gibson. 2011. The relationship between context and presupposition. Manuscript, Carleton University and MIT.

  • Soames, Scott. 1989. Presupposition. In Handbook of philosophical logic, ed. Dov Gabbay and Franz Guenther, vol. 4, 553–616. Dordrecht: Reidel.

  • Spector, Benjamin. 2007. Aspects of the pragmatics of plural morphology: On higher order implicatures. In Presupposition and implicature in compositional semantics, ed. Uli Sauerland and Penka Stateva, 243–281. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

  • Stalnaker, Robert. 1974. Pragmatic presuppositions. In Semantics and philosophy. ed. M. Munitz and P. Unger, 197–213. New York: NYU Press.

  • Stalnaker, Robert. 1978. Assertion. In Pragmatics, ed. Peter Cole, 315–332. New York: Academic Press.

  • Stalnaker Robert. (1998) On the representation of context. Journal of Logic, Language, and Information 7: 3–19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stalnaker Robert. (2002) Common ground. Linguistics and Philosophy 25: 701–721

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Benthem Johan (1996) Exploring logical dynamics. CSLI Publications, Stanford

    Google Scholar 

  • van der Sandt Rob (1992) Presupposition projection as anaphora resolution. Journal of Semantics 9: 333–377

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Rooij Robert, Katrin Schulz (2004) Exhaustive interpretation of complex sentences. Journal of Logic, Language, and Information 13: 491–519

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • von Fintel, Kai. 2004. Would you believe it? The king of France is back! Presuppositions and truth-value intuitions. In Descriptions and beyond, ed. Marga Reimer and Anne Bezuidenhout, 315–341. Oxford: Oxford University press.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Cognitive Science, Carleton University, Dunton Tower, 1125 Colonel By Drive, Ottawa, ON, K1S 5B6, Canada

    Raj Singh

Authors
  1. Raj Singh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Raj Singh.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Singh, R. Maximize Presupposition! and local contexts. Nat Lang Semantics 19, 149–168 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-010-9066-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-010-9066-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation