A Presuppositional Analysis of Definite Descriptions in Proof Theory

  • Koji Mineshima
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4914)


In this paper we propose a proof-theoretic analysis of presuppositions in natural language, focusing on the interpretation of definite descriptions. Our proposal is based on the natural deduction system of ε-calculus introduced in Carlström [2] and on constructive type theory [11,12]. Based on the idea in [2], we use the ε-calculus as an intermediate language in the translation process from natural language into constructive type theory. Using this framework, we formulate the process of presupposition resolution as the process of searching for a derivation in a natural deduction system. In particular, we show how to treat presupposition projection and accommodation within our proof-theoretic framework.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Beaver, D.: Presupposition and Assertion in Dynamic Semantics. CSLI Publications, Stanford (2001)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Carlström, J.: Interpreting Descriptions in Intensional Type Theory. Journal of Symbolic Logic 70(2), 488–514 (2005)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Fernando, T.: Conservative Generalized Quantifiers and Presupposition. Semantics and Linguistic Theory XI, 172–191 (2001)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Geurts, B.: Presuppositions and Pronouns. Elsevier, Amsterdam (1999)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Groenendijk, J., Stokhof, M.: Dynamic Predicate Logic. Linguistics and Philosophy 14, 39–100 (1991)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Heim, I.: On the Projection Problem for Presuppositions. In: Barlow, M., Flickinger, D., Wescoat, M. (eds.) Proceedings of WCCFL, vol. 2, pp. 114–125 (1983)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Karttunen, L.: Presupposition and Linguistic Context. Theoretical Linguistics 1, 181–193 (1974)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Karttunen, L., Peters, S.: Conventional Implicatures. In: Oh, C., Dineen, D. (eds.) Syntax and Semantics 11: Presupposition, pp. 1–56. Academic Press, New York (1979)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kamp, H.: A Theory of Truth and Semantic Representation. In: Groenendijk, J., Janssen, T., Stokhof, M. (eds.) Formal Methods in the Study of Language. Mathematical Centre Tracts 136, Amsterdam, pp. 277–322 (1981)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lewis, D.: Scorekeeping in a Language Game. Journal of Philosophical Logic 8, 339–359 (1979)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Martin-Löf, P.: Intuitionistic Type Theory. Notes by G. Sambin, Bibliopolis, Naples (1984)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Nordström, B., Petersson, K., Smith, J.: Programming in Martin-Löf’s Type Theory. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1990)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ranta, A.: Type-Theoretical Grammar. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1994)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Stenlund, S.: The Logic of Description and Existence. Philosophical Studies, Philosophical Society and the Department of Philosophy, University of Uppsala, Uppsala (1973)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Stenlund, S.: Descriptions in intuitionistic logic. In: Kanger, S. (ed.) Proceedings of the Third Scandinavian Logic Symposium, pp. 197–212 (1975)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Szabó, Z.G.: Descriptions and Uniqueness. Philosophical Studies 101, 29–57 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Van der Sandt, R.A.: Presupposition Projection as Anaphora Resolution. Journal of Semantics 9, 333–377 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Van Rooij, R.: Strengthening Conditional Presuppositions. Journal of Semantics 24, 289–304 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Koji Mineshima
    • 1
  1. 1.Keio University 

Personalised recommendations