Linguistics and Philosophy

, Volume 34, Issue 6, pp 491–535 | Cite as

Predicting the presuppositions of soft triggers

  • Márta AbrusánEmail author
Open Access
Research Article


The central idea behind this paper is that presuppositions of soft triggers arise from the way our attention structures the informational content of a sentence. Some aspects of the information conveyed are such that we pay attention to them by default, even in the absence of contextual information. On the other hand, contextual cues or conversational goals can divert attention to types of information that we would not pay attention to by default. Either way, whatever we do not pay attention to, be it by default, or in context, is what ends up presupposed by soft triggers. This paper attempts to predict what information in the sentence is likely to end up being the main point (i.e. what we pay attention to) and what information is independent from this, and therefore likely presupposed. It is proposed that this can be calculated by making reference to event times. The notion of aboutness used to calculate independence is based on that of Demolombe and Fariñas del Cerro (In: Holdobler S (ed) Intellectics and computational logic: papers in honor of Wolfgang Bibel, 2000).


Presuppositions Attention Soft triggers Aboutness Lexical semantics of verbs Factivity 



Many thanks to the anonymous reviewers and to Chris Potts for helpful comments and suggestions on this paper. Thanks also to Denis Bonnay, Nathan Klinedinst, Daniel Rothschild and Philippe Schlenker for many conversations on various previous versions, Emmanuel Chemla, Paul Egré, Giorgio Magri, David Nicolas and Tim Williamson for comments on a previous draft and Edgar Onea, Benjamin Spector, Pascal Amsili, Paula Menéndez-Benito, David Beaver, Mandy Simons, Craige Roberts, Sigrid Beck, Robert Demolombe, Nicholas Asher, Paolo Santorio, Kyle Rawlins, Jacopo Romoli, François Recanati, Chris Barker, Danny Fox, Eytan Zweig, Ofra Magidor, Anna Szabolcsi, Bridget Copley, Matthew Towers and the audiences at LoLa10, The Aboutness Workshop in Toulouse, JSM10, University of York, University of Tübingen, University of Göttingen, SALT20, the Riga Symposium on Semantics, IJN and IRIT for very helpful comments and questions at various stages of this research. All remaining errors are my own. This research was supported by the ESF (Euryi grant to P. Schlenker), The Mellon Foundation and the Lichtenberg Kolleg, Georg-August Universität Göttingen.

Open Access

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits any use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and the source are credited.


  1. Abbott B. (2000) Presuppositions as nonassertions. Journal of Pragmatics 32(10): 1419–1437CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abbott B. (2006) Where have some of the presuppositions gone? In: Birner B.J., Ward G. (eds) Drawing the boundaries of meaning: Neo-Gricean studies in pragmatics and semantics in honor of Laurence R. Horn. Philadelphia, John Benjamins, pp 1–20Google Scholar
  3. Abrusán, M. (2011). Triggering verbal presuppositions. In N. Li & D. Lutz (Eds.), Semantics and linguistic theory (SALT) 20 (pp. 684–701) (eLanguage).Google Scholar
  4. Abusch, D. (2002). Lexical alternatives as a source of pragmatic presuppositions. In B. Jackson (Ed.), Proceedings of SALT 12, 2002. Cornell University, CLC Publications.Google Scholar
  5. Abusch D. (2010) Presupposition triggering from alternatives. Journal of Semantics 27(1): 37–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Aikhenvald A. (2006) Evidentiality. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  7. Beaver D.I. (2001) Presupposition and assertion in dynamic semantics. CSLI Publications, StanfordGoogle Scholar
  8. Beaver, D. I. (2004). Have you noticed that your belly button lint colour is related to the colour of your clothing? In R. Bauerle, U. Reyle, & T. E. Zimmerman (Eds.), Presupposition: Papers in Honor of Hans Kamp. Emerald Group Publishing Limited.Google Scholar
  9. Chemla, E. (2009). Similarity: Towards a unified account of scalar implicatures, free choice permission and presupposition projection. Under revision for Semantics and Pragmatics.Google Scholar
  10. Chemla, E., & Bott, L. (2011). Processing presuppositions: Dynamic semantics vs pragmatic enrichment. Language and Cognitive Processes (to appear).Google Scholar
  11. Chierchia, G., & McConnell-Ginet, S. (2000). Meaning and grammar: An introduction to semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  12. Davis, C., Potts, C., & Speas, M. (2007). The pragmatic values of evidential sentences. In M. Gibson & T. Friedman (Eds.), Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory 17 (pp. 71–88). Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.Google Scholar
  13. Demolombe, R., & Fariñas del Cerro, L. (2000). Towards a logical characterization of sentences of the kind “sentence p is about object c”. In S. Holdobler (Ed.), Intellectics and computational logic: Papers in honor of Wolfgang Bibel. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  14. Demolombe R., Fariñasdel Cerro L. (2010) Information about a given entity: From semantics towards automated deduction. Journal of Logic and Computation 20(6): 1231–1250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Egré, P. (2008). Question-embedding and factivity. In F. Lihoreau (Ed.), Grazer Philosophische Studien 77 (pp. 85–125). Rodopi.Google Scholar
  16. Faller, M. (2002). Semantics and pragmatics of evidentials in Cuzco Quechua. Ph.D. thesis, Stanford University.Google Scholar
  17. Fillmore, C. (1971). Types of lexical information. In D. Steinberg & L. Jakobovits (Eds.), Semantics. An interdisciplinary reader in philosophy, linguistics and psychology (pp. 370–392). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Garrett, E. J. (2000). Evidentiality and assertion in Tibetan. Ph.D. thesis, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
  19. Gazdar G. (1979) Pragmatics: Implicature, presupposition and logical form. Academic Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  20. Geurts, B. (1994). Presupposing. Ph.D. thesis, University of Osnabrück.Google Scholar
  21. Geurts B., van der Sandt R. (2004) Interpreting focus. Theoretical Linguistics 30(1): 1–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Giannakidou A. (1998) Polarity sensitivity as (non) veridical dependency. John Benjamins, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  23. Giannakidou A. (1999) Affective dependencies. Linguistics and Philosophy 22(4): 367–421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Giannakidou A. (2009) The dependency of the subjunctive revisited: Temporal semantics and polarity. Lingua 119(12): 1883–1908CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ginzburg, J., & Kolliakou, D. (1997). Events and facts: A semantics of pou and oti clauses. In Greek linguistics (pp. 459–470). Graz: N. Neugebauer Verlag.Google Scholar
  26. Goldstein, E. (2009). Sensation and perception. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Co.Google Scholar
  27. Hamblin C. (1973) Questions in Montague English. Foundations of Language 10: 41–53Google Scholar
  28. Heim, I. (1983). On the projection problem for presuppositions. In Proceedings of WCCFL 2 (pp. 114–125).Google Scholar
  29. Hooper, J. B. (1975). On assertive predicates. In J. P. Kimball (Ed.), Syntax and semantics (pp. 91–124). New York & San Francisco & London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  30. Itti L., Koch C. (2001) Computational modeling of visual attention. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 2(3): 194–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Izvorski, R. (1997). The present perfect as an epistemic modal. In Proceedings of SALT (Vol. 7, pp. 222–239). Cornell: CLC Publications.Google Scholar
  32. Kadmon N. (2001) Formal pragmatics: Semantics, pragmatics, presupposition, and focus. Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  33. Karttunen L. (1971a) Implicative verbs. Language 47(2): 340–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Karttunen L. (1971b) Some observations on factivity. Papers in Linguistics 5: 55–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Karttunen L. (1974) Presuppositions and linguistic context. Theoretical Linguistics 1: 181–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Karttunen L. (1977) Syntax and semantics of questions. Linguistics and Philosophy 1(1): 3–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Karttunen L., Peters S. (1979) Conventional implicature. In: Oh C.-K., Dinneen D.A. (eds) Syntax and semantics, volume 11: Presupposition. Academic Press, New York, pp 1–56Google Scholar
  38. Keshet, E. (2008). Infinitival complements. In A. Gronn (Ed.), Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 12.Google Scholar
  39. Kiparsky P., Kiparsky C. (1970) Fact. In: Bierwisch M., Heidolph K. (eds) Progress in linguistics. The Haguem, Mouton, pp 143–173Google Scholar
  40. Klein, E. (1975). Two sorts of factive predicate. Pragmatics Microfiche it 1.1. frames B5–C14.Google Scholar
  41. Klinedinst N. (2009) Totally hardcore semantic presuppositions. Ms, UCLGoogle Scholar
  42. Kratzer A. (1989) An investigation of the lumps of thought. Linguistics and Philosophy 12(5): 607–653CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kusumoto K. (2005) On the quantification over times in natural language. Natural Language Semantics 13(4): 317–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Landman F. (1991) Structures for semantics. Springer, DordrechtCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Lewis D. (1979) Scorekeeping in a language game. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 8(1): 339–359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Navalpakkam V., Itti L. (2005) Modeling the influence of task on attention. Vision Research, 45(2): 205–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Partee B.H. (1973) Some structural analogies between tenses and pronouns in English. The Journal of Philosophy, 70(18): 601–609CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Potts C. (2005) The logic of conventional implicatures. Oxford studies in theoretical linguistics. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  49. Quer J. (2001) Interpreting mood. Probus, 13(1): 81–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Romoli, J. (2011). The presuppositions of soft triggers are not presuppositions. In N. Ashton, A. Chereches & D. Lut (Eds.), Proceedings of semantics and linguistic theory (SALT) 21.Google Scholar
  51. Rooth M. (1992) A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics, 1(1): 75–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Roussou A. (2010) Selecting complementizers. Lingua, 120(3): 582–603CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Schlenker, P. (2003). The lazy Frenchman’s approach to the Subjunctive. In Proceedings of Romance languages and linguistic theory (pp. 269–309).Google Scholar
  54. Schlenker, P. (2006). Presupposed entailments: The triggering problem revisited. Talk presented at Sinn und Bedeutung 11.Google Scholar
  55. Schlenker P. (2008) Be articulate: A pragmatic theory of presupposition projection. Theoretical Linguistics, 34(3): 157–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Schlenker P. (2010) Local contexts and local meanings. Philosophical Studies 151: 115–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Simons, M. (2001). On the conversational basis of some presuppositions. In R. Hastings, B. Jackson, & S. Zvolenszky (Eds.), Semantics and Linguistic Theory, 11. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.Google Scholar
  58. Simons M. (2007) Observations on embedding verbs, evidentiality, and presupposition. Lingua, 117(6): 1034–1056CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Simons, M., Tonhauser, J., Beaver, D., & Roberts, C. (2010). What projects and why. In N. Li & D. Lutz (Eds.), Proceedings of semantics and linguistic theory 20 (pp. 309–327). Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.Google Scholar
  60. Soames S. (1989) Presupposition. In: Gabbay D., Guenther F. (eds) Handbook of philosophical logic (Vol. IV). Reidel, Dordrecht, pp 553–616CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Speas P. (2008) On the syntax and semantics of evidentials. Language and Linguistics Compass, 2(5): 940–965CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Stalnaker, R. C. (1974). Pragmatic presuppositions. In Semantics and philosophy (pp. 197–214). New York: New York University.Google Scholar
  63. Stalnaker R.C. (2002) Common ground. Linguistics and Philosophy 25(5): 701–721CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Thomason R. (1990) Accommodation, meaning, and implicature: Interdisciplinary foundations for pragmatics. In: Cohen P., Morgan J., Pollack M. (eds) Intentions in communication. MA: MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 326–363Google Scholar
  65. van der Sandt R.A. (1992) Presupposition projection as anaphora resolution. Journal of Semantics, 9(4): 333–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Varlokosta, S. (1994). Issues in modern Greek sentential complementation. PhD dissertation. University of Maryland, College Park.Google Scholar
  67. von Fintel K. (2008) What is presupposition accommodation, again. Philosophical Perspectives, 22(1): 137–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Williamson T. (2002) Knowledge and its limits. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Wilson, D., & Sperber, D. (1979). Ordered entailments: An alternative to presuppositional theories. In Syntax and semantics XI: Presupposition (pp. 299–323). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  70. Yablo, S. (2008). Semantic arithmetic. Accessed 24 April 2012.

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Lichtenberg KollegGeorg-August-Universität GöttingenGöttingenGermany

Personalised recommendations