A Partial Account of Presupposition Projection

  • David Beaver
  • Emiel Krahmer


In this paper it is shown how a partial semantics for presuppositions can be given which is empirically more satisfactory than its predecessors, and how this semantics can be integrated with a technically sound, compositional grammar in the Montagovian fashion. Additionally, it is argued that the classical objection to partial accounts of presupposition projection, namely that they lack “flexibility,” is based on a misconception. Partial logics can give rise to flexible predictions without postulating any ad hoc ambiguities. Finally, it is shown how the partial foundation can be combined with a dynamic system of common-ground maintenance to account for accommodation.

cccommodation flexibility Montague Grammar partial logic presupposition projection type theory 


  1. Asher, N. and Lascarides, A., 1998, “The semantics and pragmatics of presupposition,” Journal of Semantics 15, 239–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Atlas, J., 1975, “Frege's polymorphous concept of presupposition and its role in a theory of meaning,” Semantikos 1, 29–44.Google Scholar
  3. Atlas, J., 1976, “On the semantics of presupposition and negation: An essay in philosophical logic and the foundations of language,” Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Princeton.Google Scholar
  4. Beaver, D., 1992, “The kinematics of presupposition,” pp. 17–36 in Proceedings of the Eight Amsterdam Colloquium, P. Dekker and M. Stokhof, eds., Amsterdam: ILLC.Google Scholar
  5. Beaver, D., 1994a, “When variables don't vary enough,” pp. 35–60 in Proceedings SALT IV, M. Harvey and L. Santelman, eds., Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.Google Scholar
  6. Beaver, D., 1994b, “Accommodating topics,” pp. 439–448 in The Proceedings of the IBM/Journal of Semantics Conference on Focus, Vol. 3, R. van der Sandt and P. Bosch, eds., Heidelberg: IBM (revised version to appear in Context Dependence in the Analysis of Linguistic Meaning, B. Partee and H. Kamp, eds.).Google Scholar
  7. Beaver, D., 1995, “Presupposition and assertion in dynamic semantics,” Ph.D. Dissertation, Edinburgh, to appear with CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
  8. Beaver, D., 1997, “Presupposition,” pp. 939–1008 in Handbook of Logic and Language, J. van Benthem and A. ter Meulen, eds., Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers.Google Scholar
  9. Beaver, D., 1999, “Presupposition accommodation: A plea for common sense,” in Logic, Language and Computation, Vol. 2, L. Moss, J. Ginzburg, and M. de Rijke, eds., Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
  10. Belnap, N., 1979, “A useful four valued logic,” pp. 8–37 in Modern Uses of Multiple-Valued Logics, J. Dunn and G. Epstein, eds., Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
  11. Bergmann, M., 1981, “Presupposition and two-dimensional logic,” Journal of Philosophical Logic 10, 27–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Blamey, S., 1986, “Partial logic,” pp. 1–70 in Handbook of Philosophical Logic, Vol. 3, D. Gabbay and F. Guenthner, eds., Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
  13. Blau, U., 1978, Die Dreiwertige Logik der Sprache, Berlin: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  14. Blok, P., 1993, “The interpretation of focus,” Ph.D. Dissertation, Rijksuniversiteit Groningen.Google Scholar
  15. Bochvar, D., 1939, “Ob odnom trehznachom iscislenii i ego primeneii k analizu paradoksov klassicskogo rassirennogo funkcional 'nogo iscislenija',” Matematiciskij sbornik 4, 287–308. (English translation (1981): "On a three-valued logical calculus and its applications to the analysis of the paradoxes of the classical extended functional calculus,” History and Philosophy of Logic 2, 87–112.)Google Scholar
  16. Burton-Roberts, N., 1989, The limits to Debate: A Revised Theory of Semantic Presupposition, Cambridge Studies in Linguistics, Vol. 51, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Church, A., 1940, “A formulation of the simple theory of types,” Journal of Symbolic Logic 5, 56–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cooper, R., 1983, Quantification and Syntactic Theory, Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
  19. Dowty, D., Wall, R., and Peters, S., 1981, Introduction to Montague Semantics, Synthese Language Library, Vol. 11, Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
  20. Feferman, S., 1984, “Towards useful type free theories I,” Journal of Symbolic Logic 49, 75–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Frege, G., 1892, “Ñber Sinn und Bedeutung,” Zeitschrift für Philosophie und philosophische Kritik 100, 25–50 (English translation in Philosophical Writing of Gottlob Frege, P. Geach and M. Black, eds., Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1960, pp. 56–78).Google Scholar
  22. Gallin, D., 1975, Intensional and Higher Order Modal Logic, Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
  23. Gamut, L.T.F., 1991, Logic, Language, and Meaning, Vol. 2: Intensional Logic and Logical Grammar, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  24. Gazdar, G., 1979, Pragmatics: Implicature, Presupposition and Logical Form, New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  25. Geurts, B., 1994, “Presupposing,” Ph.D. Dissertation, Osnabrück.Google Scholar
  26. Gilmore, P., 1974, “The consistency of partial set theory without extensionality,” in Axiomatic Set Theory, Proceedings of Symposia in Pure Mathematics, Vol. 13, Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society.Google Scholar
  27. Groenendijk, J. and Stokhof, M., 1984, “Studies on the semantics of questions and the pragmatics of answers,” Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  28. Hausser, R., 1976, “Presuppositions in Montague grammar,” Theoretical Linguistics 3, 245–280.Google Scholar
  29. Heim, I., 1983, “On the projection problem for presuppositions,” pp. 114–125 in Proceedings of the Second West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, M. Barlow, ed., Stanford, CA: Stanford University.Google Scholar
  30. Herzberger, H., 1973, “Dimensions of truth,” Journal of Philosophical Logic 2, 535–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Horn, L., 1985, “Metalinguistic negation and pragmatic ambiguity,” Language 61, 121–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Humberstone, L., 1981, “From worlds to possibilities,” Journal of Philosophical Logic 10, 313–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kamp, H. and Reyle, U., 1993, From Discourse to Logic. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  34. Karttunen, L., 1973, “Presuppositions of compound sentences,” Linguistic Inquiry 4, 167–193.Google Scholar
  35. Karttunen, L., 1974, “Presupposition and linguistic context,” Theoretical Linguistics 1, 181–194.Google Scholar
  36. Karttunen, L. and Peters, S., 1979, “Conventional implicature,” pp. 1–56 in Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 11: Presupposition, C. Oh and D. Dinneen, eds., New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  37. Keenan, E., 1973, “Presuppositions in natural logic,” Monist 57, 344–370.Google Scholar
  38. Kerber, M. and Kohlhase, M., to appear, “Reasoning without believing: On the mechanization of presuppositions and partiality,” in Computational Logics for Natural Language Understanding, Nutt and Mandahar, eds., Berlin: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  39. Kleene, S., 1952, Introduction to Metamathematics, Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
  40. Kracht, M., 1994, “Logic and control: How they determine the behaviour of presuppositions,” in Logic and Information Flow, J. van Eijck and A. Visser, eds., Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  41. Krahmer, E., 1994, “Partiality and dynamics,” pp. 391–410 in Proceedings of the Ninth Amsterdam Colloquium, P. Dekker and M. Stokhof, eds., Amsterdam: ILLC.Google Scholar
  42. Krahmer, E., 1998, Presupposition and Anaphora, Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
  43. Krahmer, E. and van Deemter, K., 1997, “Partial matches and the interpretation of anaphoric noun phrases,” pp. 205–210 in Proceedings of the Eleventh Amsterdam Colloquium, P. Dekker and M. Stokhof, eds., Amsterdam: ILLC.Google Scholar
  44. Krahmer, E. and van Deemter, K., 1998, “On the interpretation of anaphoric noun phrases: Towards a full understanding of partial matches,” Journal of Semantics 15, 355–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Krahmer, E. and Piwek, P., 1999, “Presupposition projection as proof construction,” pp. 281–300 in Computing Meaning, H. Bunt and R. Muskens, eds., Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  46. Langendoen, D. and Savin, H., 1971, “The projection problem for presuppositions,” pp. 55–60 in Studies in Linguistic Semantics, C. Fillmore and D. Langendoen, eds., New York: Holt.Google Scholar
  47. Langholm, T., 1988, Partiality, Truth and Persistence, Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
  48. Lewis, D., 1979, “Scorekeeping in a language game,” Journal of Philosophical Logic 8, 339–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Link, G., 1986, “Prespie in pragmatic wonderland or: The projection problem for presuppositions revisited,” pp. 101–126 in Foundations of Pragmatics and Logical Semantics, J. Groenendijk, D. de Jongh, and M. Stokhof, eds., Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
  50. Martin, J., 1979, “Some misconceptions in the critique of semantic presupposition,” Theoretical Linguistics 6, 235–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Montague, R., 1974, “The proper treatment of quantification in ordinary English,” pp. 247–270 in Formal Philosophy, Selected Papers of Richard Montague, R. Thomason, ed., New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  52. Muskens, R., 1989, “Meaning and partiality,” Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Amsterdam (published by CSLI Publications, Stanford, 1995).Google Scholar
  53. Peters, S., 1975, “A truth-conditional formulation of Karttunen's account of presupposition,” Texas Linguistic Forum 6, 137–149.Google Scholar
  54. Russell, B., 1905, “On denoting,” Mind 14, 479–493.Google Scholar
  55. Seuren, P., 1980, “Dreiwertige Logic und die Semantik natürlicher Sprache,” pp. 72–103 in Grammatik und Logik, J. Ballweg and H. Glinz, eds., Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  56. Soames, S., 1979, “A projection problem for speaker presuppositions,” Linguistic Inquiry 10(4), 623–666.Google Scholar
  57. Stalnaker, R., 1974, “Pragmatic presuppositions,” pp. 197–214 in Semantics and Philosophy, M. Munitz and P. Unger, eds., New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  58. Strawson, P., 1950, “On referring,” Mind 59, 21–52.Google Scholar
  59. Strawson, P., 1952, Introduction to Logical Theory, London: Methuen.Google Scholar
  60. Thijsse, E., 1992, “Partial logic and knowledge representation,” Ph.D. Dissertation, Eburon Publishers, Delft.Google Scholar
  61. Thomason, S., 1979, “Truth-value gaps, many truth-values and possible worlds,” pp. 357–369 in Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 11: Presupposition, C. Oh and D. Dinneen, eds., New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  62. Van der Sandt, R., 1989, “Presupposition and discourse structure,” pp. 267–294 in Semantics and Contextual Expression, R. Bartsch, J. van Benthem, and P. van Emde Boas, eds., Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
  63. Van der Sandt, R., 1992, “Presupposition projection as ananphora resolution,” Journal of Semantics 9, 333–377.Google Scholar
  64. Van der Sandt, R., to appear, “Discourse semantics and echo-quotation,” Linguistics and Philosophy.Google Scholar
  65. Van Fraassen, B.C., 1971, Formal Semantics and Logic, New York: MacMillan.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • David Beaver
    • 1
  • Emiel Krahmer
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of LinguisticsStanford UniversityStanfordU.S.A.
  2. 2.IPO, Center for User-System InteractionEindhoven University of TechnologyEindhovenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations