1

Obligatory Redundancy in Discourse

Presupposition, Antipresupposition and

Non-asserted Content

Obligatory Redundancy in Discourse

Presupposition, Antipresupposition and

Non-asserted Content

Pascal Amsili* & Claire Beyssade**

* Université Paris-Diderot & CNRS Lattice ** Institut Jean Nicod, CNRS Paris

Pascal Amsili* & Claire Beyssade**

* Université Paris-Diderot & CNRS Lattice ** Institut Jean Nicod, CNRS Paris

2

1. Introduction1. Introduction

(1) a. Jean a fait une grosse erreur. Il ne la fera plus.‘John made a big mistake. He won’t do it again’

b. Jean a fait une grosse erreur. Il ne la refera pas.‘John made a big mistake. He won’t redo it’

c. Jean a fait une grosse erreur. Il ne la refera plus.‘John made a big mistake. He won’t redo it again’

d. # Jean a fait une grosse erreur. Il ne la fera pas. ‘John made a big mistake. He won’t do it’

(1) a. Jean a fait une grosse erreur. Il ne la fera plus.‘John made a big mistake. He won’t do it again’

b. Jean a fait une grosse erreur. Il ne la refera pas.‘John made a big mistake. He won’t redo it’

c. Jean a fait une grosse erreur. Il ne la refera plus.‘John made a big mistake. He won’t redo it again’

d. # Jean a fait une grosse erreur. Il ne la fera pas. ‘John made a big mistake. He won’t do it’

3

1. Introduction1. Introduction

What is surprising in (1)? (1) Jean a fait une grosse erreur. Il ne la fera plus.

John made a big mistake. He won’t do it again.

One piece of information is given twice: • once it is asserted: John made a big mistake. • and then it is presupposed: He won’t do it again.

He won’t do it again = He did it = John made a big mistake

(presupposition)He won’t do it (assertion)

What is surprising in (1)? (1) Jean a fait une grosse erreur. Il ne la fera plus.

John made a big mistake. He won’t do it again.

One piece of information is given twice: • once it is asserted: John made a big mistake. • and then it is presupposed: He won’t do it again.

He won’t do it again = He did it = John made a big mistake

(presupposition)He won’t do it (assertion)

4

1. Introduction1. Introduction

• Redundancy between asserted contents(2) a. # It’s raining. It’s raining.

• Redundancy: presupposition - asserted content (van der Sandt, 1988)

(2) b. # John knows that it’s raining. It’s raining.

• Redundancy: asserted content - presupposition§ c. It’s raining. John knows that.

d. John made a mistake. He won’t do it (*ø / again).

• Redundancy between asserted contents(2) a. # It’s raining. It’s raining.

• Redundancy: presupposition - asserted content (van der Sandt, 1988)

(2) b. # John knows that it’s raining. It’s raining.

• Redundancy: asserted content - presupposition§ c. It’s raining. John knows that.

d. John made a mistake. He won’t do it (*ø / again).

5

1. Outline1. Outline

• Background

• Generalization: when and where does a

presupposition trigger become obligatory?

• A pragmatic explanation

• Apparent counterexamples

• Background

• Generalization: when and where does a

presupposition trigger become obligatory?

• A pragmatic explanation

• Apparent counterexamples

6

2. Background 2. Background

• The observation that too or again may, in some contexts, be compulsary is not new (a.o. Kaplan, Krifka, Zeevat, Saebo).

• But the phenomenon is general: a subclass of presupposition triggers gives rise to such an obligatory redundancy (too, again, to know that, clefts, intonation…)

• The observation that too or again may, in some contexts, be compulsary is not new (a.o. Kaplan, Krifka, Zeevat, Saebo).

• But the phenomenon is general: a subclass of presupposition triggers gives rise to such an obligatory redundancy (too, again, to know that, clefts, intonation…)

7

2.1 Kaplan: obligatoriness of too 2.1 Kaplan: obligatoriness of too

(3) a. Jo had fish and Mo did too. b. * Jo had fish and Mo did.

(Green 1968, Kaplan 1984)

• too «emphasizes the similarity between members of a pair of contrasting items »

(3) a. Jo had fish and Mo did too. b. * Jo had fish and Mo did.

(Green 1968, Kaplan 1984)

• too «emphasizes the similarity between members of a pair of contrasting items »

8

2.1 Kaplan: obligatoriness of too 2.1 Kaplan: obligatoriness of too

- limited to ‘bisentential’ too(S1 and / but S2 too)

- unclear predictions- variation of obligatoriness connected to

variation of contrast(4) a. Jo likes syntax and she likes phonetics ( ?ø / too). b. Jo likes syntax but she likes phonetics ( *ø / too).

c. Jo has lived in NY and she has lived in LA (ø / too).

- limited to ‘bisentential’ too(S1 and / but S2 too)

- unclear predictions- variation of obligatoriness connected to

variation of contrast(4) a. Jo likes syntax and she likes phonetics ( ?ø / too). b. Jo likes syntax but she likes phonetics ( *ø / too).

c. Jo has lived in NY and she has lived in LA (ø / too).

9

2.2 Krifka: distinctiveness constraint2.2 Krifka: distinctiveness constraint

Additive particles occurring after their focusFocus and topic accents

(5) A : What did Peter and Pia eat?

B: *Péter ate pàsta, and Pía ate pàsta.

B’: Péter ate pàsta, and Pía ate pasta, tòo.

Additive particles occurring after their focusFocus and topic accents

(5) A : What did Peter and Pia eat?

B: *Péter ate pàsta, and Pía ate pàsta.

B’: Péter ate pàsta, and Pía ate pasta, tòo.

10

2.2 Krifka: distinctiveness constraint2.2 Krifka: distinctiveness constraint

Congruent answer and focus accent:(6) A: What did Peter eat?

B: Peter ate pàsta.B’: * Péter ate pasta.

Partial answer and contrastive topic accent (Büring, 1998):(7) A : What did Peter and Pia eat ?

B: *Peter ate pàsta.B’: Péter ate pàsta.

Congruent answer and focus accent:(6) A: What did Peter eat?

B: Peter ate pàsta.B’: * Péter ate pasta.

Partial answer and contrastive topic accent (Büring, 1998):(7) A : What did Peter and Pia eat ?

B: *Peter ate pàsta.B’: Péter ate pàsta.

11

2.2 Krifka: distinctiveness constraint2.2 Krifka: distinctiveness constraint

• Distinctiveness constraintIf […T…C… ] is a contrastive answer to a question Q, then there is no alternative T’ of T such that the speaker is willing to assert […T’…C…]

• too allows to violate distinctiveness(8) A: What did Peter and Pia eat?

B: *Péter ate pàsta, and Pía ate pàsta.B’: Péter ate pàsta, and Pía ate pasta, tòo.

• Distinctiveness constraintIf […T…C… ] is a contrastive answer to a question Q, then there is no alternative T’ of T such that the speaker is willing to assert […T’…C…]

• too allows to violate distinctiveness(8) A: What did Peter and Pia eat?

B: *Péter ate pàsta, and Pía ate pàsta.B’: Péter ate pàsta, and Pía ate pasta, tòo.

12

2.2 Krifka: distinctiveness constraint2.2 Krifka: distinctiveness constraint

• A contrastive topic accent in the first part of the answer triggers a distinctiveness implicature.• too cancels this implicature.

The obligatoriness of too is explained only when there is a contrastive accent. Only additive particles are concerned.

• A contrastive topic accent in the first part of the answer triggers a distinctiveness implicature.• too cancels this implicature.

The obligatoriness of too is explained only when there is a contrastive accent. Only additive particles are concerned.

13

2.3 Sæbø: back to presupposition2.3 Sæbø: back to presupposition

•Too: obligatory even without contrastive topic accent

(9) When the gods arrive at Jotunheim, the giants prepare the wedding feast. But during the feast, the bride—Thor, that is—devours an entire ox and eight salmon. He also drinks three barrels of beer. This astonishes Thrym. But Loki averts the danger by explaining that Freyja has been looking forward to coming to Jotunheim so much that she has not eaten for a week. When Thrym lifts the bridal veil to kiss the bride, he is startled to find himself looking into Thor's burning eyes. This time, (#Ø/too), Loki saves the situation, explaining that the bride has not slept for a week for longing for Jotunheim.

•Too: obligatory even without contrastive topic accent

(9) When the gods arrive at Jotunheim, the giants prepare the wedding feast. But during the feast, the bride—Thor, that is—devours an entire ox and eight salmon. He also drinks three barrels of beer. This astonishes Thrym. But Loki averts the danger by explaining that Freyja has been looking forward to coming to Jotunheim so much that she has not eaten for a week. When Thrym lifts the bridal veil to kiss the bride, he is startled to find himself looking into Thor's burning eyes. This time, (#Ø/too), Loki saves the situation, explaining that the bride has not slept for a week for longing for Jotunheim.

14

2.3 Sæbø: back to presupposition2.3 Sæbø: back to presupposition

• The obligatoriness of too should be explained by the inferences triggered by the second sentence.

(10) Swift Deer could see pine-clad mountains on the other side of the Rain Valley. Far away to the east and west the dry prairies stretched out as far as the eye could see. (i) To the north lay the yellow-brown desert, a low belt of green cactus-covered ridges and distant blue mountain ranges with sharp peaks. (ii) To the south (#ø/too) he could see mountains.

• The obligatoriness of too should be explained by the inferences triggered by the second sentence.

(10) Swift Deer could see pine-clad mountains on the other side of the Rain Valley. Far away to the east and west the dry prairies stretched out as far as the eye could see. (i) To the north lay the yellow-brown desert, a low belt of green cactus-covered ridges and distant blue mountain ranges with sharp peaks. (ii) To the south (#ø/too) he could see mountains.

15

2.3 Sæbø: back to presupposition2.3 Sæbø: back to presupposition

• Presupposition more important than contrast

• Explanation based on a reasoning triggered by the second sentence

• Presupposition more important than contrast

• Explanation based on a reasoning triggered by the second sentence

16

3. Generalization3. Generalization

• Obligatory redundancy can be observed with other presupposition triggers.

Which triggers?

• Obligatory redundancy can be observed with other presupposition triggers.

Which triggers?

17

3. Generalization Which presupposition triggers? 3. Generalization Which presupposition triggers?

• Additive particles(11)Jean est malade, Marie est malade (# ø / aussi )

John is sick, Mary is sick (ø / too )

(12) Jean n’est pas malade, Marie n’est pas malade (# ø / non plus)

John isn’t sick, Mary isn’t sick (ø / either )

• Additive particles(11)Jean est malade, Marie est malade (# ø / aussi )

John is sick, Mary is sick (ø / too )

(12) Jean n’est pas malade, Marie n’est pas malade (# ø / non plus)

John isn’t sick, Mary isn’t sick (ø / either )

18

3. Generalization Which presupposition triggers? 3. Generalization Which presupposition triggers?

• Aspectual particles(13) Léa a fait une bêtise. Elle ne la (# ø / re-)fera pas.

Lea did a silly thing. She won’t (ø / re-)do it (14) Il était là hier, il est (# ø / encore / toujours) là.

He was there yesterday, he is (ø/ still ) there.

(15) Il a appelé hier, il a de nouveau appelé aujourd’hui. He called yesterday, he has (ø/ again) called today.

(16) Ce site a été créé il y a deux ans. Il n’existe (# pas / plus).

This website was created two years ago. It (don’t / no longer) exist(s).

• Aspectual particles(13) Léa a fait une bêtise. Elle ne la (# ø / re-)fera pas.

Lea did a silly thing. She won’t (ø / re-)do it (14) Il était là hier, il est (# ø / encore / toujours) là.

He was there yesterday, he is (ø/ still ) there.

(15) Il a appelé hier, il a de nouveau appelé aujourd’hui. He called yesterday, he has (ø/ again) called today.

(16) Ce site a été créé il y a deux ans. Il n’existe (# pas / plus).

This website was created two years ago. It (don’t / no longer) exist(s).

19

3. Generalization Which presupposition triggers?3. Generalization Which presupposition triggers?

• Factive verbs: know that vs. know whether

(17) Léa est partie en Afrique. Jean ne le dit à personne, bien qu’il sache (# si / que) elle est partie là-bas.

Lea’s gone to Africa. John tells no one, even though he knows (# whether / that ) she’s gone there.

• Factive verbs: know that vs. know whether

(17) Léa est partie en Afrique. Jean ne le dit à personne, bien qu’il sache (# si / que) elle est partie là-bas.

Lea’s gone to Africa. John tells no one, even though he knows (# whether / that ) she’s gone there.

20

3. Generalization Which presupposition triggers?3. Generalization Which presupposition triggers?

• Factive verbs: vérifier que vs. si

(18) Il y a eu une fuite d’eau, mais quelqu’un l’a

réparée. Jean appelé le plombier pour qu’il vérifie

(?si / que) le problème est réglé).

‘There was a leakage, but somebody fixed it. John

called the plumber so that he checks

(whether/that) le problem is solved’

• Factive verbs: vérifier que vs. si

(18) Il y a eu une fuite d’eau, mais quelqu’un l’a

réparée. Jean appelé le plombier pour qu’il vérifie

(?si / que) le problème est réglé).

‘There was a leakage, but somebody fixed it. John

called the plumber so that he checks

(whether/that) le problem is solved’

21

3. Generalization Which presupposition triggers?3. Generalization Which presupposition triggers?

• Factive verbs: ignorer que vs. si

(19) Jean est revenu de vacances. Mais comme il n’a téléphoné à personne, au bureau, tout le monde ignore (?si / que) il est chez lui.

‘John has come back from vacation. But since he called no one, at his office everybody ignores (whether/that) he is at home’

• Factive verbs: ignorer que vs. si

(19) Jean est revenu de vacances. Mais comme il n’a téléphoné à personne, au bureau, tout le monde ignore (?si / que) il est chez lui.

‘John has come back from vacation. But since he called no one, at his office everybody ignores (whether/that) he is at home’

22

3. Generalization Which presupposition triggers?3. Generalization Which presupposition triggers?

• Clefts and Prosody in English

(20) a. Someone fixed the dinner. It is John who did it.

b. Someone fixed the dinner. JOHN did it.

c. # Someone fixed the dinner. John did it.

• Clefts and Prosody in English

(20) a. Someone fixed the dinner. It is John who did it.

b. Someone fixed the dinner. JOHN did it.

c. # Someone fixed the dinner. John did it.

23

3. Generalization Which presupposition triggers?3. Generalization Which presupposition triggers?

• Clefts in French

(21)a. Quelqu’un a préparé le dîner. Ce n’est pas Jean qui l’a fait.

b. Quelqu’un a préparé le dîner. # Jean ne l’a pas fait.

‘Someone fixed the dinner. It is not Jean who did it / Jean didn’t do it’

• Clefts in French

(21)a. Quelqu’un a préparé le dîner. Ce n’est pas Jean qui l’a fait.

b. Quelqu’un a préparé le dîner. # Jean ne l’a pas fait.

‘Someone fixed the dinner. It is not Jean who did it / Jean didn’t do it’

24

3. Generalization Not all presupposition triggers3. Generalization Not all presupposition triggers

Presupposition triggers such as to regret or only

are not concerned.

(22) a. Max owns a Ferrari. He’s the only one.

b. Max owns a Ferrari. Nobody else does.

(23) a. It’s raining. Max regrets that it’s raining.

b. It’s raining. Max doesn’t like it when it

rains.

Presupposition triggers such as to regret or only

are not concerned.

(22) a. Max owns a Ferrari. He’s the only one.

b. Max owns a Ferrari. Nobody else does.

(23) a. It’s raining. Max regrets that it’s raining.

b. It’s raining. Max doesn’t like it when it

rains.

25

3. Generalization3. Generalization

• additive particles

• aspectual particles

• clefts / intonation

• some factive verbs

What do they have in common ?

• additive particles

• aspectual particles

• clefts / intonation

• some factive verbs

What do they have in common ?

26

3. Generalization3. Generalization

• too [S(f)] = S(f) + f’ f’≠ f & F(f’)

• cleft [S(f)] = S(f) + x S(x)

• again [e S(e)] = e S(e) + e’ e’<e & S(e’)

• anymore [neg S(e)] = neg S(e) + e’ e’<e & S(e’)

• that [s knows whether P] = s knows whether P + P

trigger [] = + assertion + presupposition

Triggers with no asserted content

• too [S(f)] = S(f) + f’ f’≠ f & F(f’)

• cleft [S(f)] = S(f) + x S(x)

• again [e S(e)] = e S(e) + e’ e’<e & S(e’)

• anymore [neg S(e)] = neg S(e) + e’ e’<e & S(e’)

• that [s knows whether P] = s knows whether P + P

trigger [] = + assertion + presupposition

Triggers with no asserted content

27

3. Generalization3. Generalization

Consider two sentences, S1 and S2, which only differ with

respect to their presuppositional content P.

S1 : <A, ø> i.e. S1 asserts A and conveys no presupposition

S2 : <A, P> i.e. S2 asserts A and presupposes P

We claim that in a context where the content P has been

asserted, the use of S2 is obligatory.

# P. S1. P. S2[P].

Consider two sentences, S1 and S2, which only differ with

respect to their presuppositional content P.

S1 : <A, ø> i.e. S1 asserts A and conveys no presupposition

S2 : <A, P> i.e. S2 asserts A and presupposes P

We claim that in a context where the content P has been

asserted, the use of S2 is obligatory.

# P. S1. P. S2[P].

28

4. A pragmatic explanation4. A pragmatic explanation

•Starting point: maximize presupposition

(24) a. # A father of the victim arrived at the scene.

b.The father of the victim arrived at the scene.

<a, the> forms an alternative pair

 Make your contribution presuppose as much as possible (Heim 1991)

In Sauerland / Percus terminology: (24a) is unfelicitous because it

triggers an implicated presupposition/antipresupposition incompatible

with background knowledge.

•Starting point: maximize presupposition

(24) a. # A father of the victim arrived at the scene.

b.The father of the victim arrived at the scene.

<a, the> forms an alternative pair

 Make your contribution presuppose as much as possible (Heim 1991)

In Sauerland / Percus terminology: (24a) is unfelicitous because it

triggers an implicated presupposition/antipresupposition incompatible

with background knowledge.

29

4. A pragmatic explanation4. A pragmatic explanation

(1) John made a mistake. He won’t do it (#ø /again). Assertion: John made a mistakeChoice: S1: He won’t do it

S2: He won’t do it again.

S2 is ‘presuppositionally stronger’ than S1 S2S1 but not (S1 S2)S1 antipresupposes ‘John made a mistake’ i.e.S1 implicates ‘John didn’t make any mistake’ which is incompatible

with the assertion af the first sentence. Thus (A. S1) is unfelicitous.

On the contrary, S2 doesn’t convey any antipresupposition.Thus (A. S2) is felicitous.

(1) John made a mistake. He won’t do it (#ø /again). Assertion: John made a mistakeChoice: S1: He won’t do it

S2: He won’t do it again.

S2 is ‘presuppositionally stronger’ than S1 S2S1 but not (S1 S2)S1 antipresupposes ‘John made a mistake’ i.e.S1 implicates ‘John didn’t make any mistake’ which is incompatible

with the assertion af the first sentence. Thus (A. S1) is unfelicitous.

On the contrary, S2 doesn’t convey any antipresupposition.Thus (A. S2) is felicitous.

30

4. A pragmatic explanation4. A pragmatic explanation

• Percus’s alternative pairs:<the, a>, <both, every>, <the, every>…

• our pairs:<too, ø>, <again, ø>, <anymore, ø>, <cleft, ø>, <that, whether>

Difference: <TR(S),S>

• Percus’s alternative pairs:<the, a>, <both, every>, <the, every>…

• our pairs:<too, ø>, <again, ø>, <anymore, ø>, <cleft, ø>, <that, whether>

Difference: <TR(S),S>

31

4. A pragmatic explanation4. A pragmatic explanation

• Krifka’s proposal:• Krifka’s proposal:

John is sick Mary is sick

Distinctiveness

No one else is sick repairclash

too

32

4. A pragmatic explanation4. A pragmatic explanation

• our proposal:• our proposal:

presupposition not satisfied

John is sick ø

Mary is sick

too

ø

too

antipresupposition No one else …

clash

33

5. Apparent counterexamples5.1 Enumeration 5. Apparent counterexamples5.1 Enumeration

(25)Jean est malade, Marie est malade, Paul est malade,

tout le monde est malade alors !

‘John is sick, Marie is sick, Paul is sick, everybody is

sick then!’

Specific prosody for enumeration

John is sick + enumeration contour

sick(j) + x(x≠j & sick(x))

“cataphoric presupposition”

(25)Jean est malade, Marie est malade, Paul est malade,

tout le monde est malade alors !

‘John is sick, Marie is sick, Paul is sick, everybody is

sick then!’

Specific prosody for enumeration

John is sick + enumeration contour

sick(j) + x(x≠j & sick(x))

“cataphoric presupposition”

34

5. Apparent counterexamples 5.2 Contrast / Parallel5. Apparent counterexamples 5.2 Contrast / Parallel

(26) a. Jean était là hier. Il est là aujourd’hui. ‘John was there yesterday. He’s there today’

b. Jean était là hier. Il est encore là aujourd’hui. ‘John was there yesterday. He’s still there today’

(26) a. Jean était là hier. Il est là aujourd’hui. ‘John was there yesterday. He’s there today’

b. Jean était là hier. Il est encore là aujourd’hui. ‘John was there yesterday. He’s still there today’

35

5. Apparent counterexamples 5.3 Back to Kaplan 5. Apparent counterexamples 5.3 Back to Kaplan

• Variability of obligatoriness

(4) a. Jo likes syntax and she likes phonetics ( ?ø / too).

b. Jo likes syntax but she likes phonetics ( *ø / too).

c. Jo has lived in NY and she has lived in LA (ø / too).

• Tentative explanation

(4’)a. Jo likes syntax and she likes [phonetics]F (*ø / too).

b. Jo likes syntax and [she likes phonetics ]F (ø / too).

• Variability of obligatoriness

(4) a. Jo likes syntax and she likes phonetics ( ?ø / too).

b. Jo likes syntax but she likes phonetics ( *ø / too).

c. Jo has lived in NY and she has lived in LA (ø / too).

• Tentative explanation

(4’)a. Jo likes syntax and she likes [phonetics]F (*ø / too).

b. Jo likes syntax and [she likes phonetics ]F (ø / too).

36

5. Apparent counterexamples 5.4 Particles with non asserted content?5. Apparent counterexamples 5.4 Particles with non asserted content?

(27)A: Est-ce que Marie est venue ?

B: Oui.

A: Et Jean ? / Jean aussi ? / * Jean ? (cf Engdalh)

A: ’Has Mary come?’

B: ‘Yes’

A: ‘And John? / John too? / John?’

(28)A : Marie est venue.

B : Est-ce que Jean est venu (*Ø / aussi / lui ) ?A: ’Mary came.’

B: ‘Did John come (ø/too/him)?’

(27)A: Est-ce que Marie est venue ?

B: Oui.

A: Et Jean ? / Jean aussi ? / * Jean ? (cf Engdalh)

A: ’Has Mary come?’

B: ‘Yes’

A: ‘And John? / John too? / John?’

(28)A : Marie est venue.

B : Est-ce que Jean est venu (*Ø / aussi / lui ) ?A: ’Mary came.’

B: ‘Did John come (ø/too/him)?’

37

5. Apparent counterexamples 5.4 Particles with non asserted content?5. Apparent counterexamples 5.4 Particles with non asserted content?

(29) A: Marie est légère. B: Moi, je suis légère (*ø / aussi)

A: ‘Mary is light.’B: ‘Me, I’m light (ø/too)’

(29) A: Marie est légère. B: Moi, je suis légère (*ø / aussi)

A: ‘Mary is light.’B: ‘Me, I’m light (ø/too)’

38

Conclusion Conclusion

• Sub-class of presupposition triggers, which have no asserted content.

• ‘Maximize presupposition’ applies to these items, and predicts their obligatoriness.

•Issues:

- what triggers the comparison between S and S + too ?

- how many classes of pairs ?

<too,ø>

<both, every> : both asserts every and presupposes InI=2

<the, a> : the doesn’t assert a.

the presupposes more than a, but asserts less than a.

• Sub-class of presupposition triggers, which have no asserted content.

• ‘Maximize presupposition’ applies to these items, and predicts their obligatoriness.

•Issues:

- what triggers the comparison between S and S + too ?

- how many classes of pairs ?

<too,ø>

<both, every> : both asserts every and presupposes InI=2

<the, a> : the doesn’t assert a.

the presupposes more than a, but asserts less than a.

39

Selected references Selected references Nicholas Asher and Alex Lascarides. The semantics and pragmatics of presupposition. Journal of Semantics, 15:239–299, 1998.Georgia M. Green. On too and either, and not just too and either, either. In CLS (Chicago Linguistics Society), volume 4, pages 22–39, 1968.H. Paul Grice. Logic and conversation. In Peter Cole and Jerry Morgan, editors, Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts, pages 41–58. Academic Press, New York, 1975. Reprinted in [Grice1989].H. Paul Grice. Studies in the Way of Words. Harvard University Press, Cambridge and London, 1989.John A Hawkins. Definiteness and Indefiniteness: A Study in Reference and Grammaticality Production. Croom Helm, London, 1978.Irene Heim. The Semantics of Indefinite and Definite Noun Phrases. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachussetts, Amherst, 1982.Irene Heim. Artikel und Definitheit. In Arnim von Stechow and Dieter Wunderlich, editors, Semantik: Ein internationales Handbuch des zeitgenössischen Forschung, pages 487–535. de Gruyter, Berlin, 1991.Jeff Kaplan. Obligatory too in english. Language, 60(3):510–518, 1984.

Nicholas Asher and Alex Lascarides. The semantics and pragmatics of presupposition. Journal of Semantics, 15:239–299, 1998.Georgia M. Green. On too and either, and not just too and either, either. In CLS (Chicago Linguistics Society), volume 4, pages 22–39, 1968.H. Paul Grice. Logic and conversation. In Peter Cole and Jerry Morgan, editors, Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts, pages 41–58. Academic Press, New York, 1975. Reprinted in [Grice1989].H. Paul Grice. Studies in the Way of Words. Harvard University Press, Cambridge and London, 1989.John A Hawkins. Definiteness and Indefiniteness: A Study in Reference and Grammaticality Production. Croom Helm, London, 1978.Irene Heim. The Semantics of Indefinite and Definite Noun Phrases. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachussetts, Amherst, 1982.Irene Heim. Artikel und Definitheit. In Arnim von Stechow and Dieter Wunderlich, editors, Semantik: Ein internationales Handbuch des zeitgenössischen Forschung, pages 487–535. de Gruyter, Berlin, 1991.Jeff Kaplan. Obligatory too in english. Language, 60(3):510–518, 1984.

40

Selected references Selected references

Manfred Krifka. Additive particles under stress. In Proceedings of SALT 8, pages 111–128, Cornell, CLC Publications, 1999.Percus, Orin, Antipresuppositions, in Ueyama (ed.), Theoretical and Empirical

Studies of Reference and Anaphora, 2006. Uli Sauerland. Implicated presuppositions. Hand-out for a talk given at the Polarity, Scalar Phenomena, Implicatures Workshop, University of Milan Bicocca, Milan, Italy, jun 2003.Schlenker, Philippe, Non-Redundancy: Towards A Semantic Reinterpretation of Binding Theory, Natural Language Semantics, 13, 2005.Kjell Johan Sæbø. Conversational contrast and conventional parallel: Topic implicatures and additive presuppositions. Journal of Semantics, 21(2):199–217, 2004.Rob A. van der Sandt. Context and Presupposition. Croom Helm, London, 1988.Rob A. van der Sandt. Presupposition projection as anaphora resolution. Journal of Semantics, 9(4):333–378, 1992. Henk Zeevat. Particles: Presupposition triggers, context markers or speech act markers. In Reinhart Blutner and Henk Zeevat, editors, Optimality Theory and Pragmatics, pages 91–111. Palgrave-McMillan, London, 2003.

Manfred Krifka. Additive particles under stress. In Proceedings of SALT 8, pages 111–128, Cornell, CLC Publications, 1999.Percus, Orin, Antipresuppositions, in Ueyama (ed.), Theoretical and Empirical

Studies of Reference and Anaphora, 2006. Uli Sauerland. Implicated presuppositions. Hand-out for a talk given at the Polarity, Scalar Phenomena, Implicatures Workshop, University of Milan Bicocca, Milan, Italy, jun 2003.Schlenker, Philippe, Non-Redundancy: Towards A Semantic Reinterpretation of Binding Theory, Natural Language Semantics, 13, 2005.Kjell Johan Sæbø. Conversational contrast and conventional parallel: Topic implicatures and additive presuppositions. Journal of Semantics, 21(2):199–217, 2004.Rob A. van der Sandt. Context and Presupposition. Croom Helm, London, 1988.Rob A. van der Sandt. Presupposition projection as anaphora resolution. Journal of Semantics, 9(4):333–378, 1992. Henk Zeevat. Particles: Presupposition triggers, context markers or speech act markers. In Reinhart Blutner and Henk Zeevat, editors, Optimality Theory and Pragmatics, pages 91–111. Palgrave-McMillan, London, 2003.

41

Discussion Know vs believe Discussion Know vs believe

<know, believe> (Percus)Know = believe + factivity

<know that , know whether>Know that = know whether + factivity

(30) Jean ne sait pas si P, mais il le croit.John doesn’t know whether P, but he believes it.

<know, believe> (Percus)Know = believe + factivity

<know that , know whether>Know that = know whether + factivity

(30) Jean ne sait pas si P, mais il le croit.John doesn’t know whether P, but he believes it.

42

Additive particles Additive particles

Krifka,1999

[add [...F...]] : […F…] (F≠F’ […F’…])

assertion presupposition-F’ ranges over alternatives of F that are semantically of the same type as F.-F stands for the expression in focus, marked by an accent, called the associated constituent.

Ex: aussi, non plus, encore, de nouveau, toujours...

too, neither, again, still...

Krifka,1999

[add [...F...]] : […F…] (F≠F’ […F’…])

assertion presupposition-F’ ranges over alternatives of F that are semantically of the same type as F.-F stands for the expression in focus, marked by an accent, called the associated constituent.

Ex: aussi, non plus, encore, de nouveau, toujours...

too, neither, again, still...

43

4. A pragmatic explanation4. A pragmatic explanation

MAXIMIZE PRESUPPOSITION accounts for antipresuppositions essentially by saying that a sentence will be blocked in situations where another sentence that presupposes more (but do not differ in any other way) would communicate the same thing.

(Sauerland, Schlenker, Percus)

MAXIMIZE PRESUPPOSITION accounts for antipresuppositions essentially by saying that a sentence will be blocked in situations where another sentence that presupposes more (but do not differ in any other way) would communicate the same thing.

(Sauerland, Schlenker, Percus)

44

2. Which contexts? 2. Which contexts?

The phenonemon appears also when S2 is negative, interrogative or involves an attitude verb.

(14) a. Jean fumait autrefois. Il ne fume (#pas / plus) ?John used to smoke in the past. He doesn’t smoke (Ø/anymore).

b. Jean fumait autrefois. Est-ce que qu’il fume (Ø / encore) ?John used to smoke in the past. Does he (Ø / still) smoke?

c. Jean fumait autrefois. Je crois qu’il fume (#Ø / encore).John used to smoke in the past. I believe that he (Ø / still)smokes.

The phenonemon appears also when S2 is negative, interrogative or involves an attitude verb.

(14) a. Jean fumait autrefois. Il ne fume (#pas / plus) ?John used to smoke in the past. He doesn’t smoke (Ø/anymore).

b. Jean fumait autrefois. Est-ce que qu’il fume (Ø / encore) ?John used to smoke in the past. Does he (Ø / still) smoke?

c. Jean fumait autrefois. Je crois qu’il fume (#Ø / encore).John used to smoke in the past. I believe that he (Ø / still)smokes.

45

Presupposition as a rhetorical relationPresupposition as a rhetorical relation

(i) a. Jean est allé il y a deux ans au Canada. C’est pourquoi il n’ira

plus là-bas.

b. John went to Canada two years ago. That’s why he won’t go

there anymore?

(ii) b. # Jean est allé il y a deux ans au Canada. C’est pourquoi il

n’ira pas là-bas.

b’. # John went to Canada two years ago. That’s why he won’t go

there.Contra SDRT, presupposition is not a rhetorical relation.

Presupposition and Contrast (for ex.) don’t affect the same type of content.

(i) a. Jean est allé il y a deux ans au Canada. C’est pourquoi il n’ira

plus là-bas.

b. John went to Canada two years ago. That’s why he won’t go

there anymore?

(ii) b. # Jean est allé il y a deux ans au Canada. C’est pourquoi il

n’ira pas là-bas.

b’. # John went to Canada two years ago. That’s why he won’t go

there.Contra SDRT, presupposition is not a rhetorical relation.

Presupposition and Contrast (for ex.) don’t affect the same type of content.

46

Antipresupposition (Percus 2006)Antipresupposition (Percus 2006)

"Some sentences impose the condition that the

interlocutors not take the truth of a certain proposition for

granted: - either it will have to be taken for granted that the proposition in question is false, - or it will have to be an open issue whether the proposition is true or not.

In these cases, we might say that the sentence antipresupposes the proposition in question."

"Some sentences impose the condition that the

interlocutors not take the truth of a certain proposition for

granted: - either it will have to be taken for granted that the proposition in question is false, - or it will have to be an open issue whether the proposition is true or not.

In these cases, we might say that the sentence antipresupposes the proposition in question."

47

Antipresupposition (Percus 2006)Antipresupposition (Percus 2006)

(24) Mary thinks that Jane is pregnant.antipresupposes via <think, know>:

Jane is pregnant.

(25) John is repairing a chair in Mary’s living room.antipresupposes via <a, the>:

Mary has exactly one chair in her living room.

(26) John assigned the same exercise to all of Mary’s students.

antipresupposes via <all, both>:Mary has exactly two students.

(24) Mary thinks that Jane is pregnant.antipresupposes via <think, know>:

Jane is pregnant.

(25) John is repairing a chair in Mary’s living room.antipresupposes via <a, the>:

Mary has exactly one chair in her living room.

(26) John assigned the same exercise to all of Mary’s students.

antipresupposes via <all, both>:Mary has exactly two students.

48

Antipresupposition (Percus 2006)Antipresupposition (Percus 2006)

• Presupposition: every world in the Common Ground (CG) have a certain property (Domain Condition)

• Antipresupposition: not every world in the CG have a certain property.

• The intuition: what renders a sentence with thinks, a, or all infelicitous precisely has something to do with the felicity of parallel sentences with knows, the, or both.

• Presupposition: every world in the Common Ground (CG) have a certain property (Domain Condition)

• Antipresupposition: not every world in the CG have a certain property.

• The intuition: what renders a sentence with thinks, a, or all infelicitous precisely has something to do with the felicity of parallel sentences with knows, the, or both.