Transparency: An Incremental Theory of Presupposition Projection

Abstract

The analysis of presupposition projection led researchers to propose in the early 1980s that the meaning of a clause should be viewed as its Context Change Potential rather than as its truth conditions (Heim, 1983; Stalnaker, 1974). We argue that this ‘dynamic turn’ was misguided, and that it leads straight into a dilemma: either one follows Stalnaker in his pragmatic analysis, in which case one obtains a beautiful analysis of presupposition projection in conjunctions, but not of much else; or one follows Heim in her semantic analysis, which yields broader empirical coverage but little explanatory depth (no predictions are made about connectives whose Context Change Potential was not stipulated to begin with). We sketch an alternative account, entirely developed within classical logic. We argue that in some cases a complex meaning m is conceptualized as involving a precondition p, with m=pp′ (Division). In this case a pragmatic principle, Be Articulate!, requires that if possible m should be expressed as a conjunction p and pp′ rather than as pp′ (in order to make explicit the special status of the pre-condition p). If so, why can pp′ ever be pronounced on its own? Because a principle of Minimization sometimes rules out the full conjunction p and pp′, leaving pp′ as the sole contender.

An extended abstract (6 pages) appeared in the Proceedings of the Amsterdam Colloquium 2005, though part of the present theory is somewhat different. [In the extended abstract, Transparency wasss essentially stipulated; here we derive it from more basic principles, Be Articulate! and Minimization. In addition, the statement of Transparency was different in the earlier chapter, and made better predictions with respect to post-posed if-clauses].