Skip to main content
Log in

A Partial Account of Presupposition Projection

  • Published:
Journal of Logic, Language and Information Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this paper it is shown how a partial semantics for presuppositions can be given which is empirically more satisfactory than its predecessors, and how this semantics can be integrated with a technically sound, compositional grammar in the Montagovian fashion. Additionally, it is argued that the classical objection to partial accounts of presupposition projection, namely that they lack “flexibility,” is based on a misconception. Partial logics can give rise to flexible predictions without postulating any ad hoc ambiguities. Finally, it is shown how the partial foundation can be combined with a dynamic system of common-ground maintenance to account for accommodation.

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

Access this article

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

  • Asher, N. and Lascarides, A., 1998, “The semantics and pragmatics of presupposition,” Journal of Semantics 15, 239–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Atlas, J., 1975, “Frege's polymorphous concept of presupposition and its role in a theory of meaning,” Semantikos 1, 29–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Atlas, J., 1976, “On the semantics of presupposition and negation: An essay in philosophical logic and the foundations of language,” Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Princeton.

  • Beaver, D., 1992, “The kinematics of presupposition,” pp. 17–36 in Proceedings of the Eight Amsterdam Colloquium, P. Dekker and M. Stokhof, eds., Amsterdam: ILLC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beaver, D., 1994a, “When variables don't vary enough,” pp. 35–60 in Proceedings SALT IV, M. Harvey and L. Santelman, eds., Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beaver, D., 1994b, “Accommodating topics,” pp. 439–448 in The Proceedings of the IBM/Journal of Semantics Conference on Focus, Vol. 3, R. van der Sandt and P. Bosch, eds., Heidelberg: IBM (revised version to appear in Context Dependence in the Analysis of Linguistic Meaning, B. Partee and H. Kamp, eds.).

    Google Scholar 

  • Beaver, D., 1995, “Presupposition and assertion in dynamic semantics,” Ph.D. Dissertation, Edinburgh, to appear with CSLI Publications.

  • Beaver, D., 1997, “Presupposition,” pp. 939–1008 in Handbook of Logic and Language, J. van Benthem and A. ter Meulen, eds., Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beaver, D., 1999, “Presupposition accommodation: A plea for common sense,” in Logic, Language and Computation, Vol. 2, L. Moss, J. Ginzburg, and M. de Rijke, eds., Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Belnap, N., 1979, “A useful four valued logic,” pp. 8–37 in Modern Uses of Multiple-Valued Logics, J. Dunn and G. Epstein, eds., Dordrecht: Reidel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bergmann, M., 1981, “Presupposition and two-dimensional logic,” Journal of Philosophical Logic 10, 27–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blamey, S., 1986, “Partial logic,” pp. 1–70 in Handbook of Philosophical Logic, Vol. 3, D. Gabbay and F. Guenthner, eds., Dordrecht: Reidel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blau, U., 1978, Die Dreiwertige Logik der Sprache, Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blok, P., 1993, “The interpretation of focus,” Ph.D. Dissertation, Rijksuniversiteit Groningen.

  • Bochvar, D., 1939, “Ob odnom trehznachom iscislenii i ego primeneii k analizu paradoksov klassicskogo rassirennogo funkcional 'nogo iscislenija',” Matematiciskij sbornik 4, 287–308. (English translation (1981): "On a three-valued logical calculus and its applications to the analysis of the paradoxes of the classical extended functional calculus,” History and Philosophy of Logic 2, 87–112.)

    Google Scholar 

  • Burton-Roberts, N., 1989, The limits to Debate: A Revised Theory of Semantic Presupposition, Cambridge Studies in Linguistics, Vol. 51, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Church, A., 1940, “A formulation of the simple theory of types,” Journal of Symbolic Logic 5, 56–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, R., 1983, Quantification and Syntactic Theory, Dordrecht: Reidel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dowty, D., Wall, R., and Peters, S., 1981, Introduction to Montague Semantics, Synthese Language Library, Vol. 11, Dordrecht: Reidel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feferman, S., 1984, “Towards useful type free theories I,” Journal of Symbolic Logic 49, 75–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frege, G., 1892, “Ñber Sinn und Bedeutung,” Zeitschrift für Philosophie und philosophische Kritik 100, 25–50 (English translation in Philosophical Writing of Gottlob Frege, P. Geach and M. Black, eds., Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1960, pp. 56–78).

    Google Scholar 

  • Gallin, D., 1975, Intensional and Higher Order Modal Logic, Amsterdam: North-Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gamut, L.T.F., 1991, Logic, Language, and Meaning, Vol. 2: Intensional Logic and Logical Grammar, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gazdar, G., 1979, Pragmatics: Implicature, Presupposition and Logical Form, New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geurts, B., 1994, “Presupposing,” Ph.D. Dissertation, Osnabrück.

  • Gilmore, P., 1974, “The consistency of partial set theory without extensionality,” in Axiomatic Set Theory, Proceedings of Symposia in Pure Mathematics, Vol. 13, Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society.

    Google Scholar 

  • Groenendijk, J. and Stokhof, M., 1984, “Studies on the semantics of questions and the pragmatics of answers,” Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Amsterdam.

  • Hausser, R., 1976, “Presuppositions in Montague grammar,” Theoretical Linguistics 3, 245–280.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heim, I., 1983, “On the projection problem for presuppositions,” pp. 114–125 in Proceedings of the Second West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, M. Barlow, ed., Stanford, CA: Stanford University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herzberger, H., 1973, “Dimensions of truth,” Journal of Philosophical Logic 2, 535–556.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horn, L., 1985, “Metalinguistic negation and pragmatic ambiguity,” Language 61, 121–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Humberstone, L., 1981, “From worlds to possibilities,” Journal of Philosophical Logic 10, 313–339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kamp, H. and Reyle, U., 1993, From Discourse to Logic. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karttunen, L., 1973, “Presuppositions of compound sentences,” Linguistic Inquiry 4, 167–193.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karttunen, L., 1974, “Presupposition and linguistic context,” Theoretical Linguistics 1, 181–194.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karttunen, L. and Peters, S., 1979, “Conventional implicature,” pp. 1–56 in Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 11: Presupposition, C. Oh and D. Dinneen, eds., New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keenan, E., 1973, “Presuppositions in natural logic,” Monist 57, 344–370.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kerber, M. and Kohlhase, M., to appear, “Reasoning without believing: On the mechanization of presuppositions and partiality,” in Computational Logics for Natural Language Understanding, Nutt and Mandahar, eds., Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

  • Kleene, S., 1952, Introduction to Metamathematics, Amsterdam: North-Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kracht, M., 1994, “Logic and control: How they determine the behaviour of presuppositions,” in Logic and Information Flow, J. van Eijck and A. Visser, eds., Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krahmer, E., 1994, “Partiality and dynamics,” pp. 391–410 in Proceedings of the Ninth Amsterdam Colloquium, P. Dekker and M. Stokhof, eds., Amsterdam: ILLC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krahmer, E., 1998, Presupposition and Anaphora, Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krahmer, E. and van Deemter, K., 1997, “Partial matches and the interpretation of anaphoric noun phrases,” pp. 205–210 in Proceedings of the Eleventh Amsterdam Colloquium, P. Dekker and M. Stokhof, eds., Amsterdam: ILLC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krahmer, E. and van Deemter, K., 1998, “On the interpretation of anaphoric noun phrases: Towards a full understanding of partial matches,” Journal of Semantics 15, 355–392.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krahmer, E. and Piwek, P., 1999, “Presupposition projection as proof construction,” pp. 281–300 in Computing Meaning, H. Bunt and R. Muskens, eds., Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Langendoen, D. and Savin, H., 1971, “The projection problem for presuppositions,” pp. 55–60 in Studies in Linguistic Semantics, C. Fillmore and D. Langendoen, eds., New York: Holt.

    Google Scholar 

  • Langholm, T., 1988, Partiality, Truth and Persistence, Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, D., 1979, “Scorekeeping in a language game,” Journal of Philosophical Logic 8, 339–359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Link, G., 1986, “Prespie in pragmatic wonderland or: The projection problem for presuppositions revisited,” pp. 101–126 in Foundations of Pragmatics and Logical Semantics, J. Groenendijk, D. de Jongh, and M. Stokhof, eds., Dordrecht: Foris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, J., 1979, “Some misconceptions in the critique of semantic presupposition,” Theoretical Linguistics 6, 235–282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Montague, R., 1974, “The proper treatment of quantification in ordinary English,” pp. 247–270 in Formal Philosophy, Selected Papers of Richard Montague, R. Thomason, ed., New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Muskens, R., 1989, “Meaning and partiality,” Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Amsterdam (published by CSLI Publications, Stanford, 1995).

  • Peters, S., 1975, “A truth-conditional formulation of Karttunen's account of presupposition,” Texas Linguistic Forum 6, 137–149.

    Google Scholar 

  • Russell, B., 1905, “On denoting,” Mind 14, 479–493.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seuren, P., 1980, “Dreiwertige Logic und die Semantik natürlicher Sprache,” pp. 72–103 in Grammatik und Logik, J. Ballweg and H. Glinz, eds., Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Soames, S., 1979, “A projection problem for speaker presuppositions,” Linguistic Inquiry 10(4), 623–666.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stalnaker, R., 1974, “Pragmatic presuppositions,” pp. 197–214 in Semantics and Philosophy, M. Munitz and P. Unger, eds., New York: New York University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strawson, P., 1950, “On referring,” Mind 59, 21–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strawson, P., 1952, Introduction to Logical Theory, London: Methuen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thijsse, E., 1992, “Partial logic and knowledge representation,” Ph.D. Dissertation, Eburon Publishers, Delft.

  • Thomason, S., 1979, “Truth-value gaps, many truth-values and possible worlds,” pp. 357–369 in Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 11: Presupposition, C. Oh and D. Dinneen, eds., New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van der Sandt, R., 1989, “Presupposition and discourse structure,” pp. 267–294 in Semantics and Contextual Expression, R. Bartsch, J. van Benthem, and P. van Emde Boas, eds., Dordrecht: Foris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van der Sandt, R., 1992, “Presupposition projection as ananphora resolution,” Journal of Semantics 9, 333–377.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van der Sandt, R., to appear, “Discourse semantics and echo-quotation,” Linguistics and Philosophy.

  • Van Fraassen, B.C., 1971, Formal Semantics and Logic, New York: MacMillan.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Beaver, D., Krahmer, E. A Partial Account of Presupposition Projection. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 10, 147–182 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008371413822

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008371413822

Navigation