Some remarks on certain trivalent accounts of presupposition projection. (English) Zbl 1398.03149
Summary: This paper discusses some formal properties of trivalent approaches to presupposition projection, and in particular of the middle Kleene system of S. Peters [“A truth-conditional formulation of Karttunen’s account of presupposition”, Forum 6, Austin, TX: University of Texas. 137–149 (1977)] and E. Krahmer [Presuppositions and Anaphora. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications (1998)]. After exploring the relationship between trivalent truth-functional accounts and dynamic accounts in the tradition of i. Heim [“On the projection problem for presuppositions”, in: M. Barlow, D. Flickinger and M. Westcoat (eds.), WCCFL 2: Second Annual West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. 114–126 (1983)], I show how the middle Kleene trivalent account can be formulated in a way which shows that it meets the explanatory challenge of P. Schlenker [J. Logic Lang. Inf. 16, No. 3, 325–356 (2007; Zbl 1160.03309); “Be articulate: a pragmatic theory of presupposition projection”, Theor. Linguist. 34, No. 3–4, 157–212 (2008; doi:10.1515/THLI.2008.013); “Presupposition projection: explanatory strategies”, ibid. 34, No. 3, 287–316 (2008; doi:10.1515/THLI.2008.021)], and provide some results relating to the application of the middle Kleene approach to generalised quantifiers.
MSC:
| 03B65 | Logic of natural languages |
Keywords:
presupposition projection; presupposition; trivalent logic; explanatory theories; semanticsCitations:
Zbl 1160.03309References:
| [1] | Beaver, D. (2001). Presupposition and Assertion in Dynamic Semantics. Stanford, CA: CSLI. |
| [2] | Beaver, D., & Krahmer, E. (2001). A partial account of presupposition projection. Journal of Logic, Language and Information,10, 147-182. · Zbl 0981.03033 |
| [3] | Chemla, E. (2009). Presuppositions of quantified sentences: Experimental data. Natural Language Semantics,17, 299-340. |
| [4] | Davis, S. (1991). Pragmatics: A Reader. Oxford: Oxford University Press. |
| [5] | Fox, D. (2008). Two short notes on Schlenker’s theory of presupposition projection. Theoretical Linguistics,34, 237-252. |
| [6] | Gazdar, G. (1979). Pragmatics: Implicature, Presupposition and Logical Form. New York, NY: Academic Press. |
| [7] | George, B. R. (2008a). A new predictive theory of presupposition projection. In T. Friedman, & S. Ito (Eds.), Proceedings of the 18th Semantics and Linguistic Theory Conference, held March 21-23, 2008 at The University of Massachusetts, Amherst (pp. 358-375). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. |
| [8] | George, B. R. (2008b). Predicting presupposition projection: Some alternatives in the strong Kleene tradition (Unpublished paper). University of California, Los Angeles, USA. Retrieved from http://semarch.linguistics.fas.nyu.edu/Archive/DY0YTgxN/ |
| [9] | George, B. R. (2008c). Presupposition repairs: A static, trivalent approach to predicting projection (Unpublished masters thesis). Los Angeles, USA: University of California. |
| [10] | Heim, I. (1983). On the projection problem for presuppositions. In M. Barlow, D. Flickinger, & M. Westcoat (Eds.), WCCFL 2: Second Annual West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (pp. 114-126). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. (As reprinted on pp. 397-405 of Davis (1991)). |
| [11] | Karttunen, L. (1973). Presuppositions of compound sentences. Linguistic Inquiry,4, 167-193. |
| [12] | Karttunen, L. (1974). Presuppositions and linguistic context. Theoretical. Linguistics,1, 181-194. |
| [13] | Karttunen, L., & Peters, S. (1979). Conventional implicatures in Montague grammar. In C.-K. Oh & D. Dineen (Eds.), Syntax and Semantics 11: Presupposition (pp. 1-56). New York, NY: Academic Press. |
| [14] | Keenan, E. L., & Stavi, J. (1986). A semantic characterization of natural language determiners. Linguistics and Philosophy,9, 253-326. · Zbl 0633.03017 |
| [15] | Kleene, S. (1952). Introduction to Metamathematics. Amsterdam: North Holland. · Zbl 0047.00703 |
| [16] | Krahmer, E. (1998). Presuppositions and Anaphora. Stanford, CA: CSLI. |
| [17] | LaCasse, N. R. (2008). Constraints on Connectives and Quantifiers: Solving the over-generation problem of dynamic semantics (Unpublished paper). Los Angeles, USA: University of California. |
| [18] | Peters, S. (1977). A truth-conditional formulation of Karttunen’s account of presupposition. In Texas Linguistic (Ed.), Forum 6 (pp. 137-149). Austin, TX: University of Texas. |
| [19] | Peters, S., & Westerståhl, D. (2006). Quantifiers in Language and Logic. Oxford: Oxford University Press. |
| [20] | Schlenker, P. (2006). Anti-dynamics: Presupposition projection without dynamic semantics. Journal of Logic, Language and Information,16, 325-356. · Zbl 1160.03309 |
| [21] | Schlenker, P. (2008a). Be articulate: A pragmatic theory of presupposition projection. Theoretical Linguistics,34, 157-212. |
| [22] | Schlenker, P. (2008b). Presupposition projection: Explanatory strategies. Theoretical. Linguistics,34, 287-316. |
| [23] | Schlenker, P. (2008c). Presupposition projection: The new debate. In T. Friedman, & S. Ito (Eds.), Proceedings of the 18th Semantics and Linguistic Theory Conference, held March 21-23, 2008 at The University of Massachusetts, Amherst (pp. 655-693). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. |
| [24] | Soames, S. (1989). Presupposition. In D. Gabbay, & F. Guenther (Eds.), Handbook of Philosophical Logic, Vol. IV (pp. 553-616). Dordrecht: D. Reidel. · Zbl 0875.03026 |
| [25] | van Benthem, J. (1986). Essays in Logical Semantics. Dordrecht: D. Reidel. · Zbl 0619.03021 |
| [26] | van Eijck, J. (1996). Quantifiers and partiality. In J. van der Does & J. van Eijck (Eds.), Quantifiers, Logic, and Language (pp. 105-144). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. · Zbl 0969.03046 |
This reference list is based on information provided by the publisher or from digital mathematics libraries. Its items are heuristically matched to zbMATH identifiers and may contain data conversion errors. In some cases that data have been complemented/enhanced by data from zbMATH Open. This attempts to reflect the references listed in the original paper as accurately as possible without claiming completeness or a perfect matching.
