Abstract
Some theories assume that sentences like (i) with a presupposition trigger in the scope of a quantifier carry an existential presupposition, as in (ii); others assume that they carry a universal presupposition, as in (iii).
-
(i)
No student knows that he is lucky.
-
(ii)
Existential presupposition: At least one student is lucky.
-
(iii)
Universal presupposition: Every student is lucky.
This work is an experimental investigation of this issue in French. Native speakers were recruited to evaluate the robustness of the inference from (i) to (iii). The main result is that presuppositions triggered from the scope of the quantifier aucun‘no’ are in fact universal. But the present results also suggest that the presuppositions triggered from the scope of other quantifiers depend on the quantifier. This calls for important changes in the main theories of presupposition projection.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Atlas, J.D., and S.C. Levinson. 1981.It-clefts, informativeness, and logical form: Radical pragmatics (rev. standard version). In Radical pragmatics, ed. P. Cole, 1–61. New York: Academic Press.
Bard E., Robertson D., Sorace A. (1996) Magnitude estimation of linguistic acceptability. Language 72(1): 32–68
Beaver, D.I. 1994. When variables don’t vary enough. In Semantics and Linguistic Theory 4, ed. M. Harvey and L. Santelmann, 35–60. Cornell: CLC Publications.
Beaver D.I. (2001) Presupposition and assertion in dynamic semantics. CSLI Publications, Stanford
Beck S. (2001) Reciprocals are definites. Natural Language Semantics 9(1): 69–138
Bott L., Noveck I.A. (2004) Some utterances are underinformative: The onset and time course of scalar inferences. Journal of Memory and Language 51(3): 437–457
Breheny R., Katsos N., Williams J. (2005) Are generalised scalar implicatures generated by default? An on-line investigation into the role of context in generating pragmatic inferences. Cognition 20: 1–30
Charlow, S. 2008. Strong ‘‘predicative’’ presuppositions. Ms., NYU.
Chemla, E. 2008. Projecting presuppositions with scalar implicatures. In Proceedings of SuB 12, ed. A. Grønn, 81–91. Oslo: Department of Literature, Area Studies and European Languages, University of Oslo.
Chemla, E. 2009a. An anti-introduction to presupposition. In Presuppositions and implicatures, ed. P. É gré and G. Magri. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics (in press).
Chemla, E. 2009b. An experimental approach to adverbial modification. In Semantics and pragmatics: From experiment to theory, ed. U. Sauerland and K. Yatsushiro. New York: Macmillan (in press).
Chemla, E. 2009c. Similarity: Towards a unified account of scalar implicatures, free choice permission and presupposition projection. Semantics and Pragmatics (under revision).
Cowart W. (1997) Experimental syntax: Applying objective methods to sentence judgments. Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage
Ducrot O. (1969) Présupposés et sous-entendus. Langue Francaise 4: 30–43
Evans J., Barston J., Pollard P. (1983) On the conflict between logic and belief in syllogistic reasoning. Memory & Cognition 11(3): 295–306
Gajewski, J.R. 2005. Neg-raising: Presupposition and polarity. PhD dissertation, MIT.
Gajewski J.R. (2007) Neg-raising and polarity. Linguistics and Philosophy 30(3): 289–328
George, B.R. 2008. Presupposition repairs: A static, trivalent approach to predict projection. Master’s thesis, UCLA.
Geurts B. (1999) Presuppositions and pronouns. Elsevier, New York
Geurts B. (2003) Reasoning with quantifiers. Cognition 86(3): 223–251
Grice, H.P. 1967. Logic and conversation. The William James Lectures, delivered at Harvard University. Republished in Grice, H.P. 1989. Studies in the way of words. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Heim I. (1983) On the projection problem for presuppositions. Proceedings of WCCFL 2: 114–125
Horn, L.R. 1972. On the semantic properties of logical operators in English. PhD dissertation, UCLA.
Kadmon N. (2001) Formal pragmatics: Semantics, pragmatics, presupposition, and focus. Blackwell Publishers, Oxford
Karttunen L. (1973) Presuppositions of compound sentences. Linguistic Inquiry 4: 169–193
Karttunen L. (1974) Presupposition and linguistic context. Theoretical Linguistics 1: 181–194
Löbner S. (2000) Polarity in natural language: Predication, quantification and negation in particular and characterizing sentences. Linguistics and Philosophy 23(3): 213–308
Noveck I.A., Posada A. (2003) Characterizing the time course of an implicature: An evoked potentials study. Brain and Language 85(2): 203–210
Pérez Carballo, A. 2006. A first shot at the proviso problem. Ms., MIT.
Schlenker, P. 2007, July. Anti-dynamics: Presupposition projection without dynamic semantics. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 16(3): 325–356.
Schlenker P. (2008) Be articulate: A pragmatic theory of presupposition projection. Theoretical Linguistics 34(3): 157–212
Schlenker, P. 2009. Local contexts. Semantics and Pragmatics (in press).
Schwarzschild R. (1993) Plurals, presuppositions and the sources of distributivity. Natural Language Semantics 2(3): 201–248
Soames, S. 1989. Presupposition. In Handbook of philosophical logic, ed. D. Gabbay and F. Guenther, 553–616, Vol. 4. Dordrecht: Reidel.
Stalnaker R.C. (1970) Pragmatics. Synthese 22(1): 272–289
Stalnaker R.C. (1973) Presuppositions. Journal of Philosophical Logic 2(4): 447–457
Stalnaker, R.C. 1974. Pragmatic presuppositions. In Semantics and philosophy, ed. M. Munitz and P. Unger, 197–214. New York: New York University Press.
van Rooij R. (2007) Strengthening conditional presuppositions. Journal of Semantics 24(3): 289
van der Sandt R. (1992) Presupposition projection as anaphora resolution. Journal of Semantics 9: 333–377
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Chemla, E. Presuppositions of quantified sentences: experimental data. Nat Lang Semantics 17, 299–340 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-009-9043-9
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-009-9043-9