Presuppositions of quantified sentences: Experimental data

Natural Language Semantics

Volumn 17, Issue 4, 2009, Pages 299-340

  Chemla, Emmanuel ^a  

^a PSL RESEARCH UNIVERSITY   (France)

Author keywords

Experiment; Presupposition; Quantifier; Scalar implicature

Indexed keywords

EID: 77949264321     PISSN: 0925854X     EISSN: 1572865X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11050-009-9043-9     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. 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.
2. Bard E., Robertson D., Sorace A. (1996) Magnitude estimation of linguistic acceptability. Language 72(1): 32-68.
3. 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.
4. Beaver D. I. (2001) Presupposition and assertion in dynamic semantics. CSLI Publications, Stanford.
5. Beck S. (2001) Reciprocals are definites. Natural Language Semantics 9(1): 69-138.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. Charlow, S. 2008. Strong predicative presuppositions. Ms., NYU.
9. 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.
10. 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).
11. 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).
12. Chemla, E. 2009c. Similarity: Towards a unified account of scalar implicatures, free choice permission and presupposition projection. Semantics and Pragmatics (under revision).
13. Cowart W. (1997) Experimental syntax: Applying objective methods to sentence judgments. Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage.
14. Ducrot O. (1969) Présupposés et sous-entendus. Langue Francaise 4: 30-43.
15. Evans J., Barston J., Pollard P. (1983) On the conflict between logic and belief in syllogistic reasoning. Memory & Cognition 11(3): 295-306.
16. Gajewski, J. R. 2005. Neg-raising: Presupposition and polarity. PhD dissertation, MIT.
17. Gajewski J. R. (2007) Neg-raising and polarity. Linguistics and Philosophy 30(3): 289-328.
18. George, B. R. 2008. Presupposition repairs: A static, trivalent approach to predict projection. Master's thesis, UCLA.
19. Geurts B. (1999) Presuppositions and pronouns. Elsevier, New York.
20. Geurts B. (2003) Reasoning with quantifiers. Cognition 86(3): 223-251.
21. 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.
22. Heim I. (1983) On the projection problem for presuppositions. Proceedings of WCCFL 2: 114-125.
23. Horn, L. R. 1972. On the semantic properties of logical operators in English. PhD dissertation, UCLA.
24. Kadmon N. (2001) Formal pragmatics: Semantics, pragmatics, presupposition, and focus. Blackwell Publishers, Oxford.
25. Karttunen L. (1973) Presuppositions of compound sentences. Linguistic Inquiry 4: 169-193.
26. Karttunen L. (1974) Presupposition and linguistic context. Theoretical Linguistics 1: 181-194.
27. Löbner S. (2000) Polarity in natural language: Predication, quantification and negation in particular and characterizing sentences. Linguistics and Philosophy 23(3): 213-308.
28. Noveck I. A., Posada A. (2003) Characterizing the time course of an implicature: An evoked potentials study. Brain and Language 85(2): 203-210.
29. Pérez Carballo, A. 2006. A first shot at the proviso problem. Ms., MIT.
30. Schlenker, P. 2007, July. Anti-dynamics: Presupposition projection without dynamic semantics. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 16(3): 325-356.
31. Schlenker P. (2008) Be articulate: A pragmatic theory of presupposition projection. Theoretical Linguistics 34(3): 157-212.
32. Schlenker, P. 2009. Local contexts. Semantics and Pragmatics (in press).
33. Schwarzschild R. (1993) Plurals, presuppositions and the sources of distributivity. Natural Language Semantics 2(3): 201-248.
34. Soames, S. 1989. Presupposition. In Handbook of philosophical logic, ed. D. Gabbay and F. Guenther, 553-616, Vol. 4. Dordrecht: Reidel.
35. Stalnaker R. C. (1970) Pragmatics. Synthese 22(1): 272-289.
36. Stalnaker R. C. (1973) Presuppositions. Journal of Philosophical Logic 2(4): 447-457.
37. Stalnaker, R. C. 1974. Pragmatic presuppositions. In Semantics and philosophy, ed. M. Munitz and P. Unger, 197-214. New York: New York University Press.
38. van Rooij R. (2007) Strengthening conditional presuppositions. Journal of Semantics 24(3): 289.
39. van der Sandt R. (1992) Presupposition projection as anaphora resolution. Journal of Semantics 9: 333-377.