Advertisement

Natural Language Semantics

, Volume 20, Issue 2, pp 177–226 | Cite as

Incremental vs. symmetric accounts of presupposition projection: an experimental approach

  • Emmanuel ChemlaEmail author
  • Philippe Schlenker
Article

Abstract

The presupposition triggered by an expression E is generally satisfied by information that comes before rather than after E in the sentence or discourse. In Heim’s classic theory (1983), this left-right asymmetry is encoded in the lexical semantics of dynamic connectives and operators. But several recent analyses offer a more nuanced approach, in which presupposition satisfaction has two separate components: a general principle (which varies from theory to theory) specifies under what conditions a presupposition triggered by an expression E is satisfied; and an ‘incremental’ component specifies that the principle must be checked on the basis of information that comes before E. Several researchers take this incremental component to be a processing bias, which can be overcome at some cost. If so, it should be possible, though costly, to satisfy presuppositions ‘symmetrically’, i.e. by taking into account linguistic material that comes both before and after the presupposition trigger. We test this claim with experimental means. Using inferential (and to some extent acceptability) tasks involving the anaphoric trigger aussi (‘too’) in French, we argue that symmetric readings are indeed possible (albeit degraded) in environments involving the connectives if, or, and unless.

Keywords

Presupposition projection Symmetry Incremental Processing Experiment 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abusch, D. 2002. Lexical alternatives as a source of pragmatic presuppositions. In Proceedings of SALT XII, ed. B. Jackson. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.Google Scholar
  2. Bard E., Robertson D., Sorace A. (1996) Magnitude estimation of linguistic acceptability. Language 72(1): 32–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beaver D.I. (2001) Presupposition and assertion in dynamic semantics. CSLI Publications, StanfordGoogle Scholar
  4. Beaver D.I. (2008) As brief as possible (but no briefer). Theoretical Linguistics 34(3): 213–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Beaver D.I., Krahmer E. (2001) A partial account of presupposition projection. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 10: 147–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Beaver, D.I., and H. Zeevat. 2007. Accommodation. In The Oxford handbook of linguistic interfaces, ed. G. Ramchand and C. Reiss, 503–538. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Beck S. (2006) Intervention effects follow from focus interpretation*. Natural Language Semantics 14(1): 1–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bos, J. 1994. Presupposition & VP-ellipsis. In Proceedings of the 15th Conference on Computational Linguistics—Volume 2, 1184–1190. Morristown: Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
  9. Chemla, E. 2006. Aren’t dummy alternatives only technical shortcuts? Ms., ENS & MIT. Also, Chapter 4 in Chemla (2008a).Google Scholar
  10. Chemla, E. 2008a. Présuppositions et implicatures scalaires: études formelles et expérimentales. PhD thesis, EHESS.Google Scholar
  11. Chemla E. (2008b) The transparency theory: Empirical issues and psycholinguistic routes. Theoretical Linguistics 34(3): 229–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chemla E. (2009a) Presuppositions of quantified sentences: experimental data. Natural Language Semantics 17(4): 299–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chemla, E. 2009b. Similarity: towards a unified account of scalar implicatures, free choice permission and presupposition projection. Under revision for Semantics and Pragmatics.Google Scholar
  14. Chemla E. (2009c) Universal implicatures and free choice effects: experimental data. Semantics and Pragmatics 2(2): 1–33Google Scholar
  15. Cowart W. (1997) Experimental syntax: applying objective methods to sentence judgments. Sage Publications, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  16. Elbourne P. (2005) Situations and individuals. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  17. Fox D. (2008) Two short notes on Schlenker’s theory of presupposition projection. Theoretical Linguistics 34(3): 237–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gazdar G. (1979) Pragmatics: Implicature, presupposition and logical form. Academic Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  19. George, B.R. 2008a. Predicting presupposition projection: Some alternatives in the strong Kleene tradition. Ms, UCLA. Semantics Archive at http://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/DY0YTgxN/.
  20. George, B.R. 2008b. Presupposition repairs: A static, trivalent approach to predict projection. Master’s thesis, UCLA.Google Scholar
  21. Geurts B. (1999) Presuppositions and pronouns. Elsevier, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  22. Heim, I. 1983. File change semantics and the familiarity theory of definiteness. In Use and interpretation of language, ed. R. Bäuerle, C. Schwarze, and A. von Stechow, 164–189. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
  23. Heim, I. 1990. Presupposition projection. In Reader for the Nijmegen workshop on presupposition, lexical meaning, and discourse processes. Nijmegen: University of Nijmegen.Google Scholar
  24. Heim I. (1992) Presupposition projection and the semantics of attitude verbs. Journal of Semantics 9: 183–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Karttunen L. (1974) Presupposition and linguistic context. Theoretical Linguistics 1: 181–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Klinedinst, N. 2012. Totally hardcore semantic presuppositions. In Perspectives on pragmatics and philosophy, ed. A. Capon, F.L. Piparo, and M. Carapezza. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  27. Krahmer E. (1998) Presupposition and anaphora. CSLI Publications, StanfordGoogle Scholar
  28. Krahmer E. (2008) Why be articulate? Two ways to look at the transparency theory. Theoretical Linguistics 34(3): 253–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Peters S. (1979) A truth-conditional formulation of Karttunen’s account of presupposition. Synthese 40(2): 301–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Rooth M. (1992) A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1(1): 75–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Rothschild, D. 2008a. Making dynamics semantics explanatory. Ms. Columbia University.Google Scholar
  32. Rothschild D. (2008) Transparency theory and its dynamic alternatives: Commentary on “Be articulate”. Theoretical Linguistics 34(3): 261–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Schlenker P. (2007) Anti-dynamics: Presupposition projection without dynamic semantics. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 16(3): 325–356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Schlenker P. (2008a) Be articulate: A pragmatic theory of presupposition projection. Theoretical Linguistics 34(3): 157–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Schlenker P. (2008b) Presupposition projection: Explanatory strategies. Theoretical Linguistics 34(3): 287–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Schlenker P. (2009a) Local contexts. Semantics and Pragmatics 2(3): 1–78Google Scholar
  37. Schlenker, P. 2009b. Presupposition projection: The new debate. In Proceedings of SALT 2008, ed. T. Friedman and S. Ito. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.Google Scholar
  38. Schlenker P. (2010) Local contexts and local meanings. Philosophical Studies 151: 115–142. doi: 10.1007/s11098-010-9586-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Simons, M. 2001. On the conversational basis of some presuppositions. In Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory 11, ed. R. Hastings, B. Jackson, and Z. Zvolensky. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.Google Scholar
  40. Soames S. (1982) How presuppositions are inherited: A solution to the projection problem. Linguistic Inquiry 13(3): 483–545Google Scholar
  41. Soames, S. 1989. Presupposition. In Handbook of philosophical logic, vol. IV, ed. D. Gabbay and F. Guenther, 553–616. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
  42. Sprouse, J., and D. Almeida. 2010. A quantitative defense of linguistic methodology. Ms. University of California, Irvine. http://ling.auf.net/lingBuzz/001075.
  43. Stalnaker, R.C. 1974. Pragmatic presuppositions. In Semantics and philosophy, ed. M.K. Munitz and P.K. Unger, 197–214. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Stalnaker R.C. (1975) Indicative conditionals. Philosophia 5: 269–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Stalnaker, R. 1978. Assertion. In Syntax and semantics, vol. 9: Pragmatics, ed. P. Cole, 315–322. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  46. Stevens S.S. (1956) The direct estimation of sensory magnitudes-loudness. American Journal of Psychology 69(1): 1–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. van der Sandt R. (1992) Presupposition projection as anaphora resolution. Journal of Semantics 9: 333–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. van der Sandt, R., and B. Geurts. 2001. Too. In Proceedings of the 13th Amsterdam Colloquium. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  49. van der Sandt, R., and J. Huitink. 2003. Again. In Proceedings of the 14th Amsterdam Colloquium, ed. P. Dekker and R. van Rooij, 181–186. Amsterdam: ILLC.Google Scholar
  50. Zeevat H. (1992) Presupposition and accommodation in update semantics. Journal of Semantics 9(4): 379–412CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Zeevat, H. 2002. Explaining presupposition triggers. In Information sharing: Reference and presupposition in language generation and interpretation, ed. K. van Deemter and R. Kibble Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Laboratoire de Sciences Cognitives et PsycholinguistiqueCNRS, EHESS, IECParisFrance
  2. 2.LSCP, Ecole Normale SupérieureParisFrance
  3. 3.Institut Jean-Nicod, CNRS, EHESS, IECParisFrance
  4. 4.New York UniversityNew York CityUSA

Personalised recommendations