Natural Language Semantics 24 (2):165-202 (2016)

Authors
Márta Abrusán
Institut Jean Nicod
Abstract
Some presuppositions are easier to cancel than others in embedded contexts. This contrast has been used as evidence for distinguishing two fundamentally different kinds of presuppositions, ‘soft’ and ‘hard’. ‘Soft’ presuppositions are usually assumed to arise in a pragmatic way, while ‘hard’ presuppositions are thought to be genuine semantic presuppositions. This paper argues against such a distinction and proposes to derive the difference in cancellation from inherent differences in how presupposition triggers interact with the context: their focus sensitivity, anaphoricity, and question–answer congruence properties. The paper also aims to derive the presuppositions of additive particles such as too, also, again, and of it-clefts.
Keywords Presupposition  Focus  Attitude verbs  Additive particles  It-clefts
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1007/s11050-016-9122-7
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 65,784
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Scorekeeping in a Language Game.David Lewis - 1979 - Journal of Philosophical Logic 8 (1):339--359.
A Natural History of Negation.Laurence Horn - 1989 - University of Chicago Press.
Common Ground.Robert C. Stalnaker - 2002 - Linguistics and Philosophy 25 (5-6):701-721.

View all 50 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

View all 13 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles

God's Justified Knowledge and the Hard-Soft Fact Distinction.John R. Shook - 2006 - The Proceedings of the Twenty-First World Congress of Philosophy 8:69-73.
Predicting the Presuppositions of Soft Triggers.Márta Abrusán - 2011 - Linguistics and Philosophy 34 (6):491-535.
Contra Snapshot Ockhamism.David Widerker - 1996 - International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 39 (2):95 - 102.
On the Conversational Basis of Some Presuppositions.Mandy Simons - 2001 - Semantics and Linguistic Theory 11.
Why God's Beliefs Are Not Hard-Type Soft Facts.77 88 - 2002 - Religious Studies 38 (1):77-88.
Why God's Beliefs Are Not Hard-Type Soft Facts.David Widerker - 2002 - Religious Studies 38 (1):77-88.
On Denying Presuppositions.Lenny Clapp - 2017 - Synthese 194 (6).
A Scalar Implicature-Based Approach to Neg-Raising.Jacopo Romoli - 2013 - Linguistics and Philosophy 36 (4):291-353.
Soft Facts and Ontological Dependence.Patrick Todd - 2013 - Philosophical Studies 164 (3):829-844.
Properties of It-Cleft Presupposition.Delin Judy - 1992 - Journal of Semantics 9 (4):289-306.
Norms of Presupposition.Manuel Garcia-Carpintero - 2010 - In Erich Rast & Luiz Carlos Baptista (eds.), Meaning and Context. Peter Lang. pp. 2--17.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2016-06-17

Total views
74 ( #149,102 of 2,463,153 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
2 ( #299,108 of 2,463,153 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes