Advertisement

Journal of Logic, Language and Information

, Volume 16, Issue 3, pp 325–356 | Cite as

Anti-dynamics: presupposition projection without dynamic semantics

  • Philippe Schlenker
OriginalArtical

Abstract

Heim 1983 suggested that the analysis of presupposition projection requires that the classical notion of meanings as truth conditions be replaced with a dynamic notion of meanings as Context Change Potentials. But as several researchers (including Heim herself) later noted, the dynamic framework is insufficiently predictive: although it allows one to state that, say, the dynamic effect of F and G is to first update a Context Set C with F and then with G (i.e., C[F and G] = C[F][G]), it fails to explain why there couldn’t be a ‘deviant’ conjunction and* which performed these operations in the opposite order (i.e., C[F and* G] = C[G][F]). We provide a formal introduction to a competing framework, the Transparency theory, which addresses this problem. Unlike dynamic semantics, our analysis is fully classical, i.e., bivalent and static. And it derives the projective behavior of connectives from their bivalent meaning and their syntax. We concentrate on the formal properties of a simple version of the theory, and we prove that (i) full equivalence with Heim’s results is guaranteed in the propositional case (Theorem 1), and that (ii) the equivalence can be extended to the quantificational case (for any generalized quantifiers), but only when certain conditions are met (Theorem 2).

Keywords

Presupposition Dynamic semantics Trivalence Presupposition projection 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abbott B. (2000). Presuppositions as Nonassertions. Journal of Pragmatics 32: 1419–1437CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abusch D. (2002). Lexical alternatives as a source of pragmatic presuppositions. In: Jackson B. (eds). Proceedings of SALT XII. Ithaca, NY: CLC PublicationsGoogle Scholar
  3. Beaver D. (2001). Presupposition and assertion in dynamic semantics. CSLI, StanfordGoogle Scholar
  4. Bonomi A. (2006). Truth and reference in context. Journal of Semantics 23(2): 107–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Davis, S. (Ed.) (1991). Pragmatics: A reader. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Geurts, B. (1999). Presupposition and pronouns. Elsevier.Google Scholar
  7. Grice H.P. (1981). Presupposition and conversational implicature. In: Cole P. (eds), Radical pragmatics. New York, Academic Press, pp. 183–198Google Scholar
  8. Heim I. (1983). On the projection problem for presuppositions. In: Barlow M., Flickinger D., Wescoat M. (eds), Proceedings of the second west coast conference on formal linguistics (pp. 114–125). Reprinted in Davis 1991.Google Scholar
  9. Heim, I. (1990). Presupposition projection. In R. van der Sandt (Ed.), Reader for the Nijmegen workshop on presupposition, lexical meaning, and discourse processes. U. of Nijmegen.Google Scholar
  10. Heim I. (1992). Presupposition projection and the semantics of attitude verbs. Journal of Semantics 9(3): 183–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kadmon, N. (2001). Formal pragmatics. Blackwell.Google Scholar
  12. Karttunen, L. (1974). Presupposition and linguistic context. Theoretical Linguistics, 1, 181–194. Reprinted in Davis 1991.Google Scholar
  13. Katzir R. (2006) Scalar implicatures and the maxim of manner. Manuscript, MITGoogle Scholar
  14. Keenan, E. (1996) The semantics of determiners. In S. Lappin (Ed.), The handbook of contemporary semantic theory. Blackwell.Google Scholar
  15. Lewis D. (1979). Scorekeeping in a language game. Journal of Philosophical Logic 8, 339–359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Moltmann, F. (1997). Contexts and propositions. Manuscript.Google Scholar
  17. Moltmann, F. (2003). Contexts, complex sentences, and propositional content. Manuscript.Google Scholar
  18. Schlenker P. (2006a). Transparency: An incremental theory of presupposition projection. In: Sauerland U., Stateva P. (eds), Presupposition and implicature in compositional semantics. Basingstoke UK, Palgrave MacmillanGoogle Scholar
  19. Schlenker, P. (2006b). Be Articulate: A pragmatic theory of presupposition projection. Manuscript, UCLA & Institut Jean-Nicod.Google Scholar
  20. Simons, M. (2001). On the conversational basis of some presuppositions. In R. Hasting, B. Jackson, & S. Zvolenzky (Eds.), Proceedings of SALT 11. CLC publications, Cornell University.Google Scholar
  21. Singh R. (2006). Eager for distinctness. Manuscript, MITGoogle Scholar
  22. Soames S. (1989). Presupposition. In: Gabbay D., Guenthner F. (eds), Handbook of philosophical logic IV. Dordrecht, Reidel, pp. 553–616Google Scholar
  23. Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1989). La Pertinence (Communication et cognition). Minuit.Google Scholar
  24. Stalnaker, R. (1974). Pragmatic presuppositions. In M. Munitz, & P. Unger (Eds.), Semantics and philosophy. New York: New York University Press. Reprinted in Davis 1991.Google Scholar
  25. van Benthem J. (1986). Essays in logical semantics. Reidel, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  26. van der Sandt, R. (1988). Context and presupposition. Croom Helm.Google Scholar
  27. van der Sandt R. (1992). Presupposition Projection as anaphora resolution. Journal of Semantics 9(4): 333–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Philippe Schlenker
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.UCLALos AngelesUSA
  2. 2.Institut Jean-NicodParisFrance

Personalised recommendations