Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Presupposition failure — A comedy of errors

  • Published:
Formal Aspects of Computing

Abstract

Presuppositions of utterances are the pieces of information you convey with an utterance no matter whether your utterance is true or not. We first study presupposition in a very simple framework of updating propositional information, with examples of how presuppositions of complex propositional updates can be calculated. Next we move on to presuppositions and quantification, in the context of a dynamic version of predicate logic, suitably modified to allow for presupposition failure. In both the propositional and the quantificational case, presupposition failure can be viewed as error abortion of procedures. Thus, a dynamic assertion logic which describes the preconditions for error abortion is the suitable tool for analysing presupposition.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Barwise, J.: Noun phrases, generalized quantifiers and anaphora. In P. Gärdenfors, editor,Generalized Quantifiers: linguistic and logical approaches, pp. 1–30. D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht, 1987.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  2. Beaver, D.I.: The kinematics of presupposition. In P. Dekker and M. Stokhof, editors,Proceedings of the Eighth Amsterdam Colloquium, pp. 17–36. ILLC, University of Amsterdam, 1992.

  3. Beaver, D.I.:What Comes First in Dynamic Semantics. PhD thesis, University of Edinburgh, 1993.

  4. van Benthem, J.: Semantic parallels in natural language and computation. In H.-D. Ebbinghaus et al., editors,Logic Colloquium, Granada, 1987, pp. 331–375, Amsterdam, 1989. Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  5. van Benthem, J.: General dynamics.Theoretical Linguistics, 17:159–201, 1991.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  6. van Benthem, J.:Language in Action: categories, lambdas and dynamic logic. Studies in Logic 130. Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Bouchez, O., van Eijck, J. and Istace, O.: A strategy for dynamic interpretation: a fragment and an implementation. In S. Krauwer, M. Moortgat, and Louis des Tombe, editors,Sixth Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics —Proceedings of the Conference, pp. 61–70. ACL, 1993.

  8. van Eijck, J.: The dynamics of description.Journal of Semantics, 10:239–267, 1993.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. van Eijck, J.: Axiomatizing dynamic predicate logic with quantified dynamic logic. In J. van Eijck and A. Visser, editors,Logic and Information Flow, pp. 30–48. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  10. van Eijck, J.: Presuppositions and dynamic logic. Technical Report CSLI-94-186, CSLI, Stanford, February 1994. To appear in M. Kanazawa, C. Piñon, H. de Swart (eds.),Papers from the 2nd CSLI Workshop on Logic, Language and Computation, June 1993.

  11. van Eijck, J. and Cepparello, G.: Dynamic modal predicate logic. In M. Kanazawa and C.J. Piñon (eds.),Dynamics, Polarity, and Quantification, pp. 251–276. CSLI, Stanford, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  12. van Eijck, J. and de Vries, F.J.: Dynamic interpretation and Hoare deduction.Journal of Logic, Language, and Information, 1:1–44, 1992.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  13. van Eijck, J. and de Vries, F.J.: Reasoning about update logic. Technical Report CS-R9312, CWI, Amsterdam, 1993. To appear in theJournal of Philosophical Logic.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Gazdar, G.: A solution to the projection problem. In C.-K. Oh and D. Dinneen, editors,Syntax and Semantics 11: Presupposition, pp. 57–89. Academic Press, 1979.

  15. Goldblatt, R.:Logics of Time and Computation, Second Edition, Revised and Expanded, volume 7 ofCSLI Lecture Notes. CSLI, Stanford, 1992 (first edition 1987). Distributed by University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Groenendijk, J. and Stokhof, M.: Dynamic predicate logic.Linguistics and Philosophy, 14:39–100, 1991.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  17. Heim, I.: On the projection problem for presuppositions.Proceedings of the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 2:114–126, 1983.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Karttunen, L.: Presuppositions of compound sentences.Linguistic Inquiry, 4:169–193, 1973.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Karttunen, L.: Presupposition and linguistic context.Theoretical Linguistics, pp. 181–194, 1974.

  20. Karttunen, L. and Peters, S.: Conventional implicature. In C.-K. Oh and D. Dinneen, editors,Syntax and Semantics 11: Presupposition, pp. 1–56. Academic Press, 1979.

  21. Krahmer, E.: Partiality and dynamics; theory and application. In P. Dekker and M. Stokhof, editors,Proceedings 9th Amsterdam Colloquium, pp. 391–410. ILLC, Amsterdam, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Lewis, D.: Score keeping in a language game.Journal of Philosophical Logic, 8:339–359, 1979.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Muskens, R.: Anaphora and the logic of change. In J. van Eijck, editor,Logics in AI / European Workshop JELIA '90 / Amsterdam, The Netherlands, September 1990 / Proceedings, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 478, pp. 412–427. Springer Verlag, 1991.

  24. Peters, S.: A truth-conditional formulation of Karttunen's account of presupposition.Texas Linguistic Forum, pp. 137–149, 1977.

  25. Pratt, V.: Semantical considerations on Floyd-Hoare logic.Proceedings 17th IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, pp. 109–121, 1976.

  26. Russell, B.: On denoting.Mind, 14:479–493, 1905.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. van der Sandt, R.A.:Context and Presupposition. Croom Helm, London, 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Seuren, P.: Präsuppositionen. In A. von Stechow and D. Wunderlich, editors,Semantics, An International Handbook of Contemporary Research, pp. 286–318. De Gruyter, Berlin, 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Soames, S.: Presupposition. In D. Gabbay and F. Guenthner, editors,Handbook of Philosophical Logic, pp. 553–616. Reidel, 1984. Volume IV.

  30. Tucker, J.V. and Zucker, J.I.:Program Correctness over Abstract Data Types, with Error State Semantics. North Holland, 1988.

  31. Veltman, F.: Defaults in update semantics. Technical report, Department of Philosophy, University of Amsterdam, 1991. To appear in theJournal of Philosophical Logic.

  32. Visser, A.: Actions under presuppositions. In J. van Eijck and A. Visser, editors,Logic and Information Flow, pp. 196–233. MIT Press, 1994.

  33. Zeevat, H.: Presupposition and accommodation in update semantics.Journal of Semantics, 9(4):379–412, 1992. Special Issue: Presupposition, Part 2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. CWI, P.O. Box 4079, 1009, AB Amsterdam, Netherlands

    Jan van Eijck

  2. Onderzoeksinstituut voor Taal en Spraak (OTS), Utrecht, The Netherlands

    Jan van Eijck

Authors
  1. Jan van Eijck
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jan van Eijck.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

van Eijck, J. Presupposition failure — A comedy of errors. Formal Aspects of Computing 6 (Suppl 1), 766–787 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01213602

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01213602

Keywords

Search

Navigation