Presupposition and Accommodation in Update Semantics

Zeevat, Henk

doi:10.1093/jos/9.4.379

Cited by 134 publications

(51 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Some of the main points from this debate, with main antagonists (Donnellan 1966) and (Kripke 1979), focus on 13 Notwithstanding their extreme initial appeal, rigid satisfaction and update semantic accounts are at odds with both of the previous conclusions. Logical and linguistically oriented approaches to presupposition, which revived in many dynamic semantic approaches in the nineties (among many others, Beaver 1995;van Eijck 1994;Heim 1992;Visser 1994;Zeevat 1992), face the dilemma of either assigning (18) a too strict, rigid, interpretation: (18) Sid didn't invite the president of Trans-Danubia to the exhibition. or rendering it semantically multiply ambiguous.…”

Section: On Pragmatic Ambiguities and Scope Islandsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A multi-dimensional treatment of quantification in extraordinary English

Dekker

2008

Linguist and Philos

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Link to publication Citation for published version (APA):Dekker, P. (2008). A multi-dimensional treatment of quantification in extraordinary English. Linguistics and Philosophy, 31(1), 101-127. DOI: 10.1007/s10988-008-9034-1 General rightsIt is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), other than for strictly personal, individual use, unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons). Disclaimer/Complaints regulationsIf you believe that digital publication of certain material infringes any of your rights or (privacy) interests, please let the Library know, stating your reasons. In case of a legitimate complaint, the Library will make the material inaccessible and/or remove it from the website. Please Ask the Library: http://uba.uva.nl/en/contact, or a letter to: Library of the University of Amsterdam, Secretariat, Singel 425, 1012 WP Amsterdam, The Netherlands. You will be contacted as soon as possible. Download date: 11 May 2018Abstract In this paper I revive two important formal approaches to the interpretation of natural language, that of Montague and that of Karttunen and Peters. Armed with insights from dynamic semantics (Heim, Krifka) the two turn out to stand up against age-old criticisms in an orthodox fashion. The plan is mainly methodological, as I only want to illustrate the technical feasibility of the revived proposals. Even so, there are illuminating and welcome empirical consequences on the subject of scope islands (as discussed by Abusch and Kratzer, among many others), as well as unintended theoretical implications in the contextualist debate (Grice, Recanati, Simons, Stanley, and many others again).

show abstract

Section: On Pragmatic Ambiguities and Scope Islandsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A multi-dimensional treatment of quantification in extraordinary English

Dekker

2008

Linguist and Philos

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, there is in general no systematic attempt to lay the foundations of a classification. Three notable exceptions are Abbott (2006), Abusch (2002Abusch ( , 2010 and Zeevat (1992). Zeevat's proposal is discussed in section 3.3.…”

Section: Introspective Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

Orthogonality and Presuppositions: A Bayesian Perspective

Jayez¹

2015

Bayesian Natural Language Semantics and Pragmatics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. This work focuses on the reasons why the projection properties of presuppositional elements are not uniform. Presupposition projection designates the fact that operators that suspend the truth of a proposition have no effect on the presupposition it is associated with. For instance, with Paul did not stop smoking, the main content (that Paul does not smoke) is canceled by the negation whereas the presupposition that Paul has been smoking is left untouched. It has been observed that projection is not uniform across the different expressions that convey a presupposition (its triggers), and a distinction between weak and strong triggers has emerged. It seems that this distinction correlates with an intuition of (non-)orthogonality, that is, of (non-)independence between the main content and the presupposition. I argue that this intuition is correct to some extent but has to be clarified. To this aim, I propose a Bayesian approach, which provides a more precise rendering of orthogonality.

show abstract

“…But in an attempt to explain what he calls the two-sided character of attitude contexts, Guerts defends an account which allows, in certain context, for the inference from a believes that S{} to a believes that , where S{} presupposes . See also Zeevat (1992) in which it is argued, in effect, the e-principle and the I-principle apply simultaneously. It is hard to see how we could ever make ascriptions across notional divides, however, if Zeevat's proposal was true.…”

Section: Am Grateful To Dagfinn Follesdal and To The Members Of Bapmentioning

confidence: 99%

De Re And De Dicto: Against The Conventional Wisdom

Taylor

2002

Nous

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Presupposition and Accommodation in Update Semantics

Cited by 134 publications

References 0 publications

A multi-dimensional treatment of quantification in extraordinary English

A multi-dimensional treatment of quantification in extraordinary English

Orthogonality and Presuppositions: A Bayesian Perspective

De Re And De Dicto: Against The Conventional Wisdom

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About