Repository | Journal | Volume | Articles

Strawson (in Mind 59:320–344, 1950; Theoria 30(2):96–118, 1964) argued that definite NPs trigger presuppositions as an aspect of their conventional meanings, and this semantic conception of presupposition triggers is incorporated into the binding theory of presuppositions (van der Sandt, in J Semant 9:333–377, 1992 and Geurts, in Presupposition and pronouns, 1999). The phenomenon of presupposition denials, however, presents a problem for the semantic conception of presupposition triggers, for in such denials the alleged semantic presuppositions seem to be “cancelled” by a negation operator. Geurts (in Language 74(2):274–307, 1998; Presupposition and pronouns, 1999) attempts to solve this problem by utilizing the binding theory’s allowance for local accommodation. Geurts’ proposal, however, is inadequate, primarily because Geurts formulates the binding theory within discourse representation theory (DRT), which makes no allowance for the illocutionary force of denial. Asher and Lascarides’ (in J Semant 15:239–299, 1998a; J Semant 15:83–113, 1998b; The logics of conversation, 2003) segmented discourse representation theory (SDRT), however, has the resources to account for the illocutionary force of denial. Utilizing a version of SDRT I demonstrate that the “cancelling” of a presupposition by echoic negation in presupposition denials crucially depends upon the denial of information that is pragmatically communicated by accommodation.

DOI: 10.1007/s11229-016-1026-z

Full citation: