A Note on Kripke’s Observation

  • Shogo Suzuki
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4012)


In an unpublished manuscript [1], Kripke argues against the usual view on the presupposition of too, according to which too induces a presupposition that there is an object different from the referent of the focus which satisfies the unfocused part of the sentence to which too applies. Rather, too has a presupposition that has to be anaphoric to particular objects which are parallel with the referent of the focus. Van der Sandt and Geurts try to formulate this observation in their binding theory of presupposition, which, though, fails to capture the full range of Kripke’s original observation. This paper proposes a simple formulation of the observation by using Rooth’s Alternative Semantics for focus and Stalnaker’s ideas concerning presuppositions and context.


Common Ground Global Context Discourse Referent Usual View Binding Theory 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Kripke, S.: Remarks on the formulation of the projection problem. (Unpublished manuscript 1990)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Karttunen, L., Peters, S.: Conventional implicature. In: Oh, C.K., Dinneen, D.A. (eds.) Syntax and Semantics 11: Presupposition, pp. 1–56. Academic Press, New York (1979)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    van der Sandt, R., Geurts, B.: Too. In: Proceedings of the 13th Amsterdam Colloquium, University of Amsterdam (2001)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    van der Sandt, R.: Presupposition projection as anaphora resolution. Journal of Semantics 9, 333–377 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Geurts, B.: Presuppositions and Pronouns. Elsevier, Oxford (1999)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Geurts, B., van der Sandt, R.: Interpreting focus. Theoretical Linguistics 30, 1–44 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Beaver, D., Zeevat, H.: Accommodation. In: Ramchand, G., Reiss, C. (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Interfaces, OUP, Oxford (to appear)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Rooth, M.: Association with Focus. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst (1985)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rooth, M.: A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1, 75–116 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Stalnaker, R.: Context and Content. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Büring, D.: The Meaning of Topic and Focus - The 59th Street Bridge Accent. Routledge, London (1997)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Soames, S.: Presupposition. In: Gabbay, D., Guenthner, F. (eds.) Handbook of Philosophical Logic, vol. VI, pp. 553–616. Kluwer, Dordrecht (1989)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Zeevat, H.: Explaining presupposition triggers. In: van Deemter, K., Kibble, R. (eds.) Information Sharing: Reference and Presupposition in Language Generation and Interpretation, CSLI, Stanford, pp. 61–87 (2002)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Schwarzschild, R.: Focus interpretations: comments on Geurts and van der Sandt. Theoretical Linguistics 30, 137–147 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kratzer, A.: Interpreting focus: Presupposed or expressive meanings? a comment on Bart Geurts and Rob van der Sandt. Theoretical Linguistics 30, 123–136 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Büring, D.: Focus suppositions. Theoretical Linguistics 30, 65–76 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Geurts, B., van der Sandt, R.: Interpreting focus again. Theoretical Linguistics 30, 149–161 (2004)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Giannakidou, A.: Polarity Sensitivity as (Non) Veridical Dependency. Benjamins, Amsterdam (1998)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Shogo Suzuki
    • 1
  1. 1.University of Tokyo 

Personalised recommendations