Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Theoretical Linguistics

An Open Peer Review Journal

Editor-in-Chief: Krifka, Manfred

Ed. by Gärtner, Hans-Martin

4 Issues per year


IMPACT FACTOR 2016: 0.864
5-year IMPACT FACTOR: 1.744

CiteScore 2016: 0.72

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2016: 0.555
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2016: 1.105

Online
ISSN
1613-4060
See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 34, Issue 3 (Jan 2008)

Issues

Be Articulate: A pragmatic theory of presupposition projection

Philippe Schlenker
  • Institut Jean-Nicod, CNRS; Département d'Études Cognitives, École Normale Supérieure, Paris, France; New York University.
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
Published Online: 2008-12-01 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/THLI.2008.013

Abstract

In the 1980's, the analysis of presupposition projection contributed to a ‘dynamic turn’ in semantics: the classical notion of meanings as truth conditions was replaced with a dynamic notion of meanings as Context Change Potentials (Heim 1983). We explore an alternative in which presupposition projection follows from the combination of a fully classical semantics with two pragmatic principles of manner, Be Articulate and Be Brief. Be Articulate is a violable constraint which requires that a meaning pp′, conceptualized as involving a pre-condition p (its ‘presupposition’), should be articulated as … (p and pp′) … (e.g. … it is raining and John knows it …) rather than as … pp′ …. Be Brief, which is more highly ranked than Be Articulate, disallows a full conjunction whose first element is semantically idle. In particular, … (p and pp′) … is ruled out by Be Brief – and hence … pp′ … is acceptable despite Be Articulate – if one can determine as soon as p and is uttered that no matter how the sentence ends these words could be eliminated without affecting its contextual meaning. Two equivalence theorems guarantee that these principles derive Heim's results in almost all cases. Unlike dynamic semantics, our analysis does not encode in the meaning of connectives the left-right asymmetry which is often found in presupposition projection; instead, we give a flexible analysis of this incremental bias, which allows us to account for some ‘symmetric readings’ in which the bias is overridden (e.g. If the bathroom is not hidden, this house has no bathroom).

About the article

Published Online: 2008-12-01

Published in Print: 2008-12-01


Citation Information: Theoretical Linguistics, ISSN (Online) 1613-4060, ISSN (Print) 0301-4428, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/THLI.2008.013.

Export Citation

Citing Articles

Here you can find all Crossref-listed publications in which this article is cited. If you would like to receive automatic email messages as soon as this article is cited in other publications, simply activate the “Citation Alert” on the top of this page.

[1]
Oliver Bott, Petra Augurzky, Wolfgang Sternefeld, and Rolf Ulrich
Cognition, 2017, Volume 166, Page 328
[2]
Jeffrey Klassen and Michael Wagner
Journal of Memory and Language, 2017, Volume 92, Page 305
[3]
Mandy Simons, David Beaver, Craige Roberts, and Judith Tonhauser
Discourse Processes, 2017, Volume 54, Number 3, Page 187
[4]
David Schueler
Studia Linguistica, 2016, Volume 70, Number 3, Page 297
[5]
Florian Schwarz and Sonja Tiemann
Journal of Semantics, 2016, Page ffw005
[6]
Filippo Domaneschi, Elena Carrea, Carlo Penco, and Alberto Greco
Frontiers in Psychology, 2016, Volume 6
[7]
Raj Singh, Evelina Fedorenko, Kyle Mahowald, and Edward Gibson
Cognitive Science, 2016, Volume 40, Number 3, Page 607
[8]
Benjamin R. George
Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics, 2014, Volume 24, Number 1-2, Page 86
[9]
Louis de Saussure
Journal of Pragmatics, 2013, Volume 59, Page 178
[10]
Emmanuel Chemla and Philippe Schlenker
Natural Language Semantics, 2012, Volume 20, Number 2, Page 177
[11]
Márta Abrusán
Linguistics and Philosophy, 2011, Volume 34, Number 6, Page 491
[12]
Nathan Klinedinst and Daniel Rothschild
Natural Language Semantics, 2012, Volume 20, Number 2, Page 137
[13]
Philippe Schlenker
Linguistics and Philosophy, 2011, Volume 34, Number 4, Page 341
[14]
Atle Grønn and Kjell Johan Sæbø
Journal of Logic, Language and Information, 2012, Volume 21, Number 1, Page 75
[15]
Emmanuel Chemla and Lewis Bott
Language and Cognitive Processes, 2013, Volume 28, Number 3, Page 241
[16]
Philippe Schlenker
Language and Linguistics Compass, 2011, Volume 5, Number 12, Page 858
[17]
Philippe Schlenker
Natural Language Semantics, 2011, Volume 19, Number 4, Page 395
[18]
Márta Abrusán
Natural Language Semantics, 2011, Volume 19, Number 3, Page 257
[20]
Philippe Schlenker
Philosophical Studies, 2010, Volume 151, Number 1, Page 115
[21]
P. Schlenker
Mind, 2010, Volume 119, Number 474, Page 377
[22]
Emmanuel Chemla
Natural Language Semantics, 2009, Volume 17, Number 4, Page 299

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in