Natural Language Semantics

, Volume 19, Issue 2, pp 149–168 | Cite as

Maximize Presupposition! and local contexts

  • Raj SinghEmail author


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.


Maximize Presupposition! Local contexts Antipresupposition projection Variables Novelty/Familiarity Condition 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Amsili, Pascal, and Claire Beyssade. 2006. Compulsory presupposition in discourse. In Proceedings of the second workshop on constraints in discourse, Maynooth National University.Google Scholar
  2. Barwise, Jon. 1987. Noun phrases, generalized quantifiers, and anaphora. In Generalized quantifiers: Linguistic and logical approaches, ed. Peter Gardenfors, 1–29. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
  3. Beaver David (2001) Presupposition and assertion in dynamic semantics. CSLI Publications, StanfordGoogle Scholar
  4. Chemla, Emmanuel. 2007. French both: A gap in the theory of antipresupposition. Snippets 15: 4–5.Google Scholar
  5. Chemla Emmanuel (2008) An epistemic step for anti-presuppositions. Journal of Semantics 25: 141–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chemla, Emmanuel. 2009. Similarity: Towards a unified account of scalar implicatures, free choice permission, and presupposition projection. Under revision for Semantics and Pragmatics.Google Scholar
  7. Chemla, Emmanuel, and Philippe Schlenker. 2009. Incremental vs. symmetric accounts of presupposition projection: An experimental approach. Manuscript, IJN and NYU.Google Scholar
  8. Chemla, Emmanuel, and Benjamin Spector. 2009. Experimental evidence for embedded scalar implicatures. Journal of Semantics, in press.Google Scholar
  9. 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.Google Scholar
  10. 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.Google Scholar
  11. 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.Google Scholar
  12. Embick David, Alec Marantz (2008) Architecture and blocking. Linguistic Inquiry 39: 1–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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.Google Scholar
  14. Fox Danny (2008) Two short notes on Schlenker’s theory of presupposition projection. Theoretical Linguistics 34: 237–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Geurts Bart (1999) Presuppositions and pronouns. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  16. Geurts, Bart, and Nausicaa Pouscoulous. 2009. Embedded implicatures?!? Semantics and Pragmatics 2: 1–34.Google Scholar
  17. 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.Google Scholar
  18. Grice, H.P. 1967. Logic and conversation. William James Lectures. Manuscript, Harvard University.Google Scholar
  19. Groenendijk Jeroen, Martin Stokhof (1991) Dynamic predicate logic. Linguistics and Philosophy 14: 39–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hawkins John A (1978) Definiteness and indefiniteness: A study in grammaticality prediction. Croon Helm, LondonGoogle Scholar
  21. Heim, Irene. 1982. On the semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.Google Scholar
  22. 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.Google Scholar
  23. Heim, Irene. 1983b. On the projection problem for presuppositions. In WCCFL 2, ed. M. Barlow et al., 114–125. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
  24. Heim, Irene. 1990. Presupposition projection. In Reader for the Nijmegen workshop on Presupposition, lexical meaning and discourse processes. Nijmegen: University of Nijmegen.Google Scholar
  25. Heim, Irene. 1991. Artikel und Definitheit. In Semantics: An International Handbook of Contemporary Research. 487–535: Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  26. 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.Google Scholar
  27. Heim Irene, Angelika Kratzer (1998) Semantics in generative grammar. Blackwell, MaldenGoogle Scholar
  28. Horn, Laurence R. 1972. On the semantic properties of logical operators in English. PhD dissertation, UCLA.Google Scholar
  29. Karttunen Lauri (1973) Presuppositions of compound sentences. Linguistic Inquiry 4: 167–193Google Scholar
  30. Karttunen Lauri (1974) Presupposition and linguistic context. Theoretical Linguistics 1: 181–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 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.Google Scholar
  32. Katzir Roni (2007) Structurally defined alternatives. Linguistics and Philosophy 30: 669–690CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. LaCasse, Nicolas R. 2008. Constraints on connectives and quantifiers: Solving the overgeneration problem of dynamic semantics. Manuscript, UCLA.Google Scholar
  34. Magri Giorgio (2009) A theory of individual level predicates based on blind mandatory scalar implicatures. Natural Language Semantics 17: 245–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 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.Google Scholar
  36. Rooth Mats. (1992) A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1: 75–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Rothschild, Daniel. 2008. Making dynamic semantics explanatory: Presupposition projection. Manuscript, Columbia University.Google Scholar
  38. Russell Benjamin (2006) Against grammatical computation of scalar implicatures. Journal of Semantics 23: 361–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Sauerland Uli. (2002) The present tense is vacuous. Snippets 6: 12–13Google Scholar
  40. Sauerland, Uli. 2003a. Implicated presuppositions. Handout for a talk presented at the University of Milan Bicocca.Google Scholar
  41. Sauerland, Uli. 2003b. A new semantics for number. In Proceedings of SALT 13, R. Young and Y. Zhou, 258–275. Ithaca. NY: CLC Publications.Google Scholar
  42. Sauerland Uli. (2004) Scalar implicatures in complex sentences. Linguistics and Philosophy 27: 367–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Sauerland, Uli. 2008. Implicated presuppositions. In Sentence and Context: Language, context, and cognition, ed. A. Steube. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  44. Schlenker, Philippe. 2006. Maximize presupposition and Gricean reasoning. Manuscript, UCLA and Institute Jean-Nicod, Paris.Google Scholar
  45. Schlenker Philippe (2007) Anti-dynamics: Presupposition projection without dynamic semantics. Journal of Logic, Language, and Information 16: 325–356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Schlenker, Philippe. 2008. Be Articulate! A pragmatic theory of presupposition projection. Theoretical Linguistics 34: 157–212.Google Scholar
  47. Schlenker Philippe (2009) Local contexts. Semantics and Pragmatics 2: 1–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Singh, Raj. 2008. Modularity and locality in interpretation. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
  49. 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.Google Scholar
  50. Singh, Raj. 2010. Oddness and ignorance inferences. Handout of talk presented at MOSAIC 2, McGill University, Montréal.Google Scholar
  51. Singh, Raj, Evelina Federenko, and Edward Gibson. 2011. The relationship between context and presupposition. Manuscript, Carleton University and MIT.Google Scholar
  52. Soames, Scott. 1989. Presupposition. In Handbook of philosophical logic, ed. Dov Gabbay and Franz Guenther, vol. 4, 553–616. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
  53. 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.Google Scholar
  54. Stalnaker, Robert. 1974. Pragmatic presuppositions. In Semantics and philosophy. ed. M. Munitz and P. Unger, 197–213. New York: NYU Press.Google Scholar
  55. Stalnaker, Robert. 1978. Assertion. In Pragmatics, ed. Peter Cole, 315–332. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  56. Stalnaker Robert. (1998) On the representation of context. Journal of Logic, Language, and Information 7: 3–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Stalnaker Robert. (2002) Common ground. Linguistics and Philosophy 25: 701–721CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. van Benthem Johan (1996) Exploring logical dynamics. CSLI Publications, StanfordGoogle Scholar
  59. van der Sandt Rob (1992) Presupposition projection as anaphora resolution. Journal of Semantics 9: 333–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. van Rooij Robert, Katrin Schulz (2004) Exhaustive interpretation of complex sentences. Journal of Logic, Language, and Information 13: 491–519CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 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.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Cognitive ScienceCarleton UniversityOttawaCanada

Personalised recommendations