Presuppositions of quantified sentences: experimental data
- 404 Downloads
Some theories assume that sentences like (i) with a presupposition trigger in the scope of a quantifier carry an existential presupposition, as in (ii); others assume that they carry a universal presupposition, as in (iii).
This work is an experimental investigation of this issue in French. Native speakers were recruited to evaluate the robustness of the inference from (i) to (iii). The main result is that presuppositions triggered from the scope of the quantifier aucun‘no’ are in fact universal. But the present results also suggest that the presuppositions triggered from the scope of other quantifiers depend on the quantifier. This calls for important changes in the main theories of presupposition projection.
No student knows that he is lucky.
Existential presupposition: At least one student is lucky.
Universal presupposition: Every student is lucky.
KeywordsPresupposition Scalar implicature Quantifier Experiment
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Atlas, J.D., and S.C. Levinson. 1981.It-clefts, informativeness, and logical form: Radical pragmatics (rev. standard version). In Radical pragmatics, ed. P. Cole, 1–61. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
- Beaver, D.I. 1994. When variables don’t vary enough. In Semantics and Linguistic Theory 4, ed. M. Harvey and L. Santelmann, 35–60. Cornell: CLC Publications.Google Scholar
- Beaver D.I. (2001) Presupposition and assertion in dynamic semantics. CSLI Publications, StanfordGoogle Scholar
- Breheny R., Katsos N., Williams J. (2005) Are generalised scalar implicatures generated by default? An on-line investigation into the role of context in generating pragmatic inferences. Cognition 20: 1–30Google Scholar
- Charlow, S. 2008. Strong ‘‘predicative’’ presuppositions. Ms., NYU.Google Scholar
- Chemla, E. 2008. Projecting presuppositions with scalar implicatures. In Proceedings of SuB 12, ed. A. Grønn, 81–91. Oslo: Department of Literature, Area Studies and European Languages, University of Oslo.Google Scholar
- Chemla, E. 2009a. An anti-introduction to presupposition. In Presuppositions and implicatures, ed. P. É gré and G. Magri. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics (in press).Google Scholar
- Chemla, E. 2009b. An experimental approach to adverbial modification. In Semantics and pragmatics: From experiment to theory, ed. U. Sauerland and K. Yatsushiro. New York: Macmillan (in press).Google Scholar
- Chemla, E. 2009c. Similarity: Towards a unified account of scalar implicatures, free choice permission and presupposition projection. Semantics and Pragmatics (under revision).Google Scholar
- Cowart W. (1997) Experimental syntax: Applying objective methods to sentence judgments. Thousand Oaks, CA, SageGoogle Scholar
- Evans J., Barston J., Pollard P. (1983) On the conflict between logic and belief in syllogistic reasoning. Memory & Cognition 11(3): 295–306Google Scholar
- Gajewski, J.R. 2005. Neg-raising: Presupposition and polarity. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
- George, B.R. 2008. Presupposition repairs: A static, trivalent approach to predict projection. Master’s thesis, UCLA.Google Scholar
- Geurts B. (1999) Presuppositions and pronouns. Elsevier, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Grice, H.P. 1967. Logic and conversation. The William James Lectures, delivered at Harvard University. Republished in Grice, H.P. 1989. Studies in the way of words. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- Heim I. (1983) On the projection problem for presuppositions. Proceedings of WCCFL 2: 114–125Google Scholar
- Horn, L.R. 1972. On the semantic properties of logical operators in English. PhD dissertation, UCLA.Google Scholar
- Kadmon N. (2001) Formal pragmatics: Semantics, pragmatics, presupposition, and focus. Blackwell Publishers, OxfordGoogle Scholar
- Karttunen L. (1973) Presuppositions of compound sentences. Linguistic Inquiry 4: 169–193Google Scholar
- Pérez Carballo, A. 2006. A first shot at the proviso problem. Ms., MIT.Google Scholar
- Schlenker, P. 2007, July. Anti-dynamics: Presupposition projection without dynamic semantics. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 16(3): 325–356.Google Scholar
- Schlenker, P. 2009. Local contexts. Semantics and Pragmatics (in press).Google Scholar
- Soames, S. 1989. Presupposition. In Handbook of philosophical logic, ed. D. Gabbay and F. Guenther, 553–616, Vol. 4. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
- Stalnaker, R.C. 1974. Pragmatic presuppositions. In Semantics and philosophy, ed. M. Munitz and P. Unger, 197–214. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009