Presupposition: Introduction

Transcription

1 Presupposition: Introduction Sources: Levinson 1983 (Pragmatics) Kadmon 2001 (Formal Pragmatics) 481: Presupposition--Introduction 1

2 Levinson 1983 Examples of Presupposition (see handout) Properties of Presupposition Family test (Chierchia & McConnell-Ginet) It was John who left. It wasn t John who left. Was it John who left? If it was John who left, then we can relax. Someone left Defeasible in certain contexts: It wasn t Oakland OR San Francisco that won. The game was called off because of the earthquake. Detachable John didn t leave. At least with pronunciation: John didn t LEAVE. Focus is related to presupposition: JOHN didn t leave. 481: Presupposition--Introduction 2

3 Presupposition Projection Which presuppositions of component clauses will in fact be inherited by the complex whole? Kartunnen 1973 Holes It is possible that the King of France is bald. Sue knows that the King of France is bald. Plugs Looney old Harry believes he s the King of France. Nixon announced his regret that he did not know what his subordinates were up to. Filters If John does Linguistics, he will regret doing it. Either John will not in the end do linguistics, or he will regret doing it. 481: Presupposition--Introduction 3

4 In a sentence of the form if p then q, the presuppositions of the parts will be inherited by the whole unless q presupposes r and p entails r. In a sentence of the form p or q, the presuppositions of the parts will be inherited by the whole unless q presupposes r and p entails r Metalinguistic Negation (plug) vs. Descriptive Negation (hole): Horn 1985 The King of France isn t bald. There is no King of France. She isn t competent in Linguistics --She is masterly at the subject! I didn t buy tomahtoes, I bought tomaytoes. Contradiction contour Liberman & Sag 1974» Elephantiasis isn t incurable! Hedberg, Sosa & Fadden 2003» A: Where? What are you talking about?» B: In Japan.» A. 481: Presupposition--Introduction 4

5 Gazdar 1979 The context consists of a set of propositions that are mutually known by participants, or which would at least be accepted to be non-controversial. When they converse, participants augment the context by the addition of the propositions they express.the order in which an utterance s inferences are added is the following: 1. The entailments of the uttered sentence S. 2. The clausal conversational implicatures of S 3. The scalar conversational implicatures of S 4. The presuppositions of S. Some of the police, and in fact all of them, beat up the protester. Entailment: All of the police beat up the protester. Scalar implicature: The speaker knows that not all of the police beat up the protester. Some of the police, if not all of them, beat up the protester. Clausal implicature: It is consistent with all that the speaker knows that all of the police beat up the protester. Scalar implicature: The speaker knows that not all of the police beat up the protester. 481: Presupposition--Introduction 5

6 If there is a King of France, the King of France doesn t any longer live in Versailles Clausal implicature: It is consistent with all the speaker knows that there is not a King of France. Presupposition: The speaker knows that there exists a King of France. John doesn t regret failing, because in fact he passed. Entailment: John passed. Presupposition: John failed. Kissinger ceased to be Secretary of State before the third world war started. Background knowledge: There has been no third world war. Presupposition: The third world war started. The student said that he hadn t realized that Wales was a republic. Background knowledge: Wales isn t a republic. Presupposition: Wales is a republic.» We can do without Kartunnen s plugs. 481: Presupposition--Introduction 6

7 Stalnaker-Kartunnen-Heim 1. JOHN drinks too and Mary doesn t like it. 2. Bill is not present and JOHN drinks too. 3. Bill drinks and JOHN drinks too. 4. If JOHN drinks too, then the bottle is empty. 5. If the bottle is empty, then JOHN drinks too. 6. If Bill drinks, then JOHN drinks too. Someone else drinks besides John. 1,2,4,5 presuppose this. 3,6 do not presuppose this. Stalnaker 1974, Kartunnen 1974, Heim 1983: Presupposition projection facts simply fall out of a theory of context change. 481: Presupposition--Introduction 7

8 Example: B is a presupposition (ps) of S iff S can be felicitously uttered only in contexts that entail B. A context c admits a sentence S = df c satisfies (= entails) ps(s). A context c admits a sentence S iff each of the constituent sentences of S is admitted by its local context. Suppose p q is uttered in context c. First, you add p to c. This creates a new context, c+p. Afterwards, you add q to c+p. Hence, c is the local context of p, and c+p is the local context of q. (i) Concerning: ps(p) The theory requires just this: c must satisfy ps(p). And so the prediction is: p q inherits ps(p). (ii) Concerning: ps(q) The theory requires just this: c+p must satisfy ps(q). And so the prediction is: p q presupposes p ps(q). 481: Presupposition--Introduction 8

9 JOHN drinks too and Mary doesn t like it. For the sentence to be admitted, c must entail that someone besides John drinks: c must entail ps(p) Bill drinks and JOHN drinks too. Here p entails ps(q), so the sentence is admitted. Bill is not present and JOHN drinks too. For the sentence to be admitted, c alone can entail ps(q): CONTEXT(A): I need a non-drinker to support me in avoiding alcohol. It is known that Bill is a teetotaler. You ve just mentioned the (known) fact that Mary drinks. For the sentence to be admitted, c+p can entail ps(q): CONTEXT(B): I need a non-drinker to support me in avoiding alcohol. The only possible reason for anybody to not be present (in this room) is to drink vodka in the other room. 481: Presupposition--Introduction 9

10 Presupposition Accommodation Lewis 1979: If at time t something is said that requires presupposition P to be acceptable, and if P is not presupposed just before t, then ceteris paribus and within certain limits presupposition P comes into existence. Kadmon 2001: Suppose you don t know anything about the animals I keep or don t keep at home. Suppose we are at my house, and we hear some scratching noises outside. Then I say one of the following: a) My dog is at the door. b) My giraffe is at the door. c) I keep a giraffe here. The giraffe is at the door. d) I keep a dog here. The dog is at the door. Suppose you are on trial for selling crack. Which of the following questions seems more fair to you? a) Did you sell crack? b) When did you stop selling crack? 481: Presupposition--Introduction 10

11 Heim 1981 The Familiarity Theory of Definiteness (file card metaphor) A woman was bitten by a dog. She hit him with a paddle. It broke in half. The dog barked. 1: woman: 2 bit 1, 1 hit 2 with 3. 2: dog: 2 bit 1, 1 hit 2 with 3, 2 barked. 3: paddle: 1 hit 2 with 3, 3 broke. A woman was bitten by a dog. She hit him with a paddle. It broke in half. A dog barked. 1: woman: 2 bit 1, 1 hit 2 with 3. 2: dog: 2 bit 1, 1 hit 2 with 3. 3: paddle: 1 hit 2 with 3, 3 broke. 4: dog: 4 barked. Rule: If the N, select an existing file card and enter information. If a N, select a new file card and enter information. Accommodate when necessary. 481: Presupposition--Introduction 11

12 Gundel, Hedberg and Zacharski 1993 a N: at least type identifiable. a N +> not familiar (Q1), but does not entail it: Dr. Smith told me that exercise helps. Since I heard it from a doctor, I m inclined to believe it. the N: at least uniquely identifiable. The N +> familiar (Q2), but does not entail it: I couldn t sleep last night. The dog next door kept me awake. that N: at least familiar. Entails (or perhaps rather conventionally implicates) familiar. I couldn t sleep last night. That dog next door kept me awake. Questions for thought: Should all examples of non-familiar definites be analyzed as cases of accommodation, like Heim suggests? Should we predict the impossibility of familiar indefinites, like Heim suggests? 481: Presupposition--Introduction 12

13 Prince 1978 Informative Presupposition clefts: [Beginning of newspaper article] It was just about 50 years ago that Henry Ford gave us the weekend. On September 25, 1926, in a somewhat shocking move for that time, he decided to establish a 40-hour work week, giving his employees two days off instead of one. (Prince example, Philadelphia Inquirer). Mark a piece of information as fact, known to some people although not yet known to the intended hearer. The federal government is dealing with AIDS as if the virus was a problem that didn t travel along interstate highways and was none of its business. It s this lethal national inertia in the face of the most devastating epidemic of the late 20th century that finally prompted one congressman to strike out on his own. (Hedberg 1990 example, from an Ellen Goodman op-ed piece, 15 May 1987) Question for thought: Should all informative presupposition it-clefts be treated as instances of accommodation? 481: Presupposition--Introduction 13