Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T04:35:44.414Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

16 - Presuppositions

from Part VIII - Implying and (Pre)supposing

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 October 2022

By
Márta Abrusán
Edited by
Daniel Altshuler
Daniel Altshuler
Affiliation:
University of Oxford
Get access

Summary

This chapter presents the most influential linguistic approaches to presupposition. Going beyond the traditional analyses of the problem of presupposition projection, it also considers recent developments in linguistics that link the analysis of presuppositions to general processes of cognition and reasoning, such as attention, probabilistic reasoning, theory of mind, information structure, attitudes and perspectival structure. I discuss some outstanding questions: whether presuppositions form one coherent group or should be thought of as different types of phenomena, why we have presuppositions at all, and why we see the presuppositions that we see (aka the triggering problem). Overall, the chapter stresses the need to consider the intricacies of the interaction of presuppositions with the broader discourse context.

Keywords

presuppositioninformation structureconventional implicatureprojectiontriggeringaccommodationanaphoradiscoursecommon groundat-issue content
Type
Chapter
Information
Linguistics Meets Philosophy , pp. 470 - 501
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2022

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abbott, B. (2000). Presuppositions as nonassertions. Journal of Pragmatics, 32(10), 1419–1437.Google Scholar
Abbott, B. (2006). Where have some of the presuppositions gone? In Birner, B. J. & Ward, G. (Eds.), Drawing the Boundaries of Meaning: Neo-Gricean Studies in Pragmatics and Semantics in Honor of Laurence R. Horn (pp. 1–20). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Abrusán, M. (2011). Predicting the presuppositions of soft triggers. Linguistics and Philosophy, 34(6), 491–535.Google Scholar
Abrusán, M. (2016). Presupposition cancellation: Explaining the ‘soft–hard’ trigger distinction. Natural Language Semantics, 24(2), 165–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abrusán, M. (2022). The perspective-sensitivity of presuppositions. Mind & Language. https://doi.org/10.1111/mila.12359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abrusán, M., & Szendröi, K. (2013). Experimenting with the King of France: Topics, variability and definite descriptions. Semantics and Pragmatics, 6(10), 1–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abusch, D. (2002). Lexical alternatives as a source of pragmatic presuppositions. In Jackson, B. (Ed.), Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT), Vol. 12 (pp. 1–19).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abusch, D. (2005). Triggering from Alternative Sets and Projection of Pragmatic Presuppositions. Ms., Cornell University. Available at http://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/jJkYjM3O/Abusch-Triggering.pdfGoogle Scholar
Abusch, D. (2010). Presupposition triggering from alternatives. Journal of Semantics, 27(1), 37–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Asher, N. (2011). Lexical Meaning in Context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Asher, N., & Lascarides, A. (1998). The semantics and pragmatics of presupposition. Journal of Semantics, 15, 239–299.Google Scholar
Asher, N., Prévot, L., & Vieu, L. (2007). Setting the background in discourse. Discours. Revue de linguistique, psycholinguistique et informatique. A journal of linguistics, psycholinguistics and computational linguistics, 1. https://doi.org/10.4000/discours.301Google Scholar
Atlas, J. D. (1977). Negation, ambiguity and presupposition. Linguistics and Philosophy, 1, 321–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Atlas, J. D. (1979). How linguistics matters to philosophy: Presupposition, truth, and meaning. In Oh, C. K. & Dineen, D. A. (Eds.), Presupposition (pp. 265–281). Leiden: Brill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Atlas, J. D. (2004). Descriptions, linguistic topic/comment, and negative existentials: A case study in the application of linguistic theory to problems in the philosophy of language. In Reimer, M. & Bezuidenhout, A. (Eds.), Descriptions and Beyond (pp. 342–360). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Atlas, J., & Levinson, S. (1981). It-clefts, informativeness and logical form: Radical pragmatics. In Cole, P. (Ed.), Radical Pragmatics (pp. 1–61). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Beaver, D. (1994). Accommodating topics. In The Proceedings of the IBM/Journal of Semantics Conference on Focus, Vol. 3, IBM.Google Scholar
Beaver, D. (1997). Presupposition. In van Benthem, J. & ter Meulen, A. (Eds.), Handbook of Logic and Language (pp. 939–1008). Amsterdam: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beaver, D. (1999). Presupposition accommodation: A plea for common sense. Logic, Language and Computation, 2, 21–44.Google Scholar
Beaver, D. (2001). Presupposition and Assertion in Dynamic Semantics. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Beaver, D. (2010). Have you noticed that your belly button lint colour is related to the colour of your clothing? In Bäuerle, R., Reyle, U., & Zimmerman, T. E. (Eds.), Presupposition: Papers in Honor of Hans Kamp. Bingley: Emerald.Google Scholar
Beaver, D. I., & Geurts, B. (2014). Presupposition. In Zalta, E. N. (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2014 edition).Google Scholar
Beaver, D., & Krahmer, E. (2001). A partial account of presupposition projection. Journal of Logic, Language and Information, 10, 147–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beaver, D., & Zeevat, H. (2007). Accommodation. In Ramchand, G. & Reiss, C. (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Interfaces (pp. 503–536). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Beaver, D. I., Roberts, C., Simons, M., & Tonhauser, J. (2017). Questions under discussion: Where information structure meets projective content. Annual Review of Linguistics, 3, 265–284.Google Scholar
Bezuidenhout, A. (2010). Grice on presupposition. In Petrus, K. (Ed.), Meaning and Analysis (pp. 75–102). London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Bittner, M. (2001). Topical referents for individuals and possibilities. Semantics and Linguistic Theory, 11, 36–55.Google Scholar
Bittner, M. (2007). Online update: Temporal, modal, and de se anaphora in polysynthetic discourse. In Barker, C. & Jacobson, P. (Eds.), Direct Compositionality (pp. 363–404). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boër, S. E., & Lycan, W. G. (1976). The myth of semantic presupposition. In Zwicky, A. (Ed.), Papers in Nonphonology. Columbus: The Ohio State University. Department of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Burton-Roberts, N. (1989). The Limits to Debate: A Revised Theory of Semantic Presupposition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Chemla, E. (2010). Similarity: Towards a Unified Account of Scalar Implicatures, Free Choice Permission and Presupposition Projection. Ms., ENS Paris.Google Scholar
Chierchia, G., & McConnell-Ginet, S. (2000). Meaning and Grammar: An Introduction to Semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cummins, C., & Rohde, H. (2015). Evoking context with contrastive stress: Effects on pragmatic enrichment. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1779.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Degen, J., & Tonhauser, J. (2020). Constraint-Based Projection. Talk presented at SALT 30.Google Scholar
Degen, J., & Tonhauser, J. (2021). Prior beliefs modulate projection. Open Mind, 2021, 1–12.Google Scholar
Delin, J. (1990). Cleft Constructions in Discourse. PhD thesis, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Delin, J. (1992). Properties of it-cleft presupposition. Journal of Semantics, 9, 289–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Demolombe, R., & Fariñas del Cerro, L. (2010). Information about a given entity: From semantics towards automated deduction. Journal of Logic and Computation, 20, 1221–1250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Djärv, K., & Bacovcin, H. A. (2020). Prosodic effects on factive presupposition projection. Journal of Pragmatics, 169, 61–85.Google Scholar
Ducrot, O. (1972). Dire et ne pas dire. Paris: Hermann.Google Scholar
Ducrot, O. (1984). Le dire et le dit. Paris: Minuit.Google Scholar
Fine, K. (2014). Truth-maker semantics for intuitionistic logic. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 43(2–3), 549–577.Google Scholar
Fine, K. (2017). Truthmaker semantics. In Hale, B., Wright, C., & Miller, A. (Eds.), A Companion to the Philosophy of Language 2 (pp. 556–577). Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
von Fintel, K. (2004). Would you believe it? The King of France is back! (Presuppositions and truth-value intuitions). In Reimer, M. & Bezuidenhout, A. (Eds.), Descriptions and Beyond (pp. 315–341). Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
von Fintel, K. (2008). What is presupposition accommodation, again? Philosophical Perspectives, 22(1), 137–170.Google Scholar
van Fraassen, B. C. (1969). Presuppositions: Supervaluations and free logic. In Lambert, K. (Ed.), The Logical Way of Doing Things (pp. 67–92). New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Frege, G. (1892). Über Sinn und Bedeutung. Zeitschrift für Philosophie und philosophische Kritik C, 25–50. English translation: On sense and meaning, in McGuinness, B. (ed.), Frege: Collected works, Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Gauker, C. (1998). What is a context of utterance? Philosophical Studies, 91(2), 149–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gazdar, G. (1979). Pragmatics: Implicature, Presupposition and Logical Form. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
George, B. R. (2008). A new predictive theory of presupposition projection. In Friedman, T. & Ito, S. (Eds.), Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT), Vol. 18 (pp. 358–375).Google Scholar
Geurts, B. (1999). Presuppositions and Pronouns. New York: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Geurts, B. (2017). Presupposition and givenness. In Huang, Y. (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Glanzberg, M. (2005). Presuppositions, truth values, and expressing propositions. In Preyer, G. & Peter, G. (Eds.), Contextualism in Philosophy (pp. 349–396). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Glanzberg, M. (2019). The case of knowledge ascriptions. Oxford Studies in Philosophy of Language, 1(1), 35.Google Scholar
Grice, H. (1981). Presupposition and conversational implicature. Radical Pragmatics, 183, 269–282.Google Scholar
Gyarmathy, Z. (2015). Culminations and presuppositions. In Thomas Brochhagen, F. R. & Theiler, N. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 20th Amsterdam Colloquium (pp. 167–176).Google Scholar
Heim, I. (1983). On the projection problem for presuppositions. In Proceedings of the 2nd West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, Vol. 2 (pp. 114–125). Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Heim, I. (1990). Presupposition projection. In Reader for the Nijmegen Workshop on Presupposition, Lexical Meaning, and Discourse Processes. University of Nijmegen.Google Scholar
Heim, I. (1992). Presupposition projection and the semantics of attitude verbs. Journal of Semantics, 9, 183–221.Google Scholar
Holton, R. (1997). Some telling examples: A reply to Tsohatzidis. Journal of Pragmatics, 28(5), 625–628.Google Scholar
Horn, L. R. (1990). Showdown at truth-value gap: Burton-Roberts on presupposition. Journal of Linguistics, 26, 483–503.Google Scholar
Jayez, J. (2011). Projection and probability. In Roberts, C. & Tonhauser, J. (Eds.), Proceedings of the ESSLLI 2011 Workshop on Projective Content (pp. 53–66).Google Scholar
Jeong, S. (2020). Prosodically-conditioned factive inferences in Korean: An experimental study. In Rhyne, J., Lamp, K., Dreier, N., & Kwon, C. (Eds.), Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT), Vol. 30 (pp. 1–21).Google Scholar
Kadmon, N. (2001). Formal Pragmatics: Semantics, Pragmatics, Presupposition, and Focus. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Kallulli, D. (2006). Triggering factivity: Prosodic evidence for syntactic structure. In Proceedings of 25th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (pp. 211–219).Google Scholar
Kamp, H. (2015). Using proper names as intermediaries between labelled entity representations. Erkenntnis, 80(2), 263–312.Google Scholar
Kamp, H., & Bende-Farkas, Á. (2018). Epistemic specificity from a communication-theoretic perspective. Journal of Semantics, 36(1), 1–51.Google Scholar
Kamp, H., & Rossdeutscher, A. (1994). DRS-construction and lexically driven inference. Theoretical Linguistics, 20(2–3), 165–236.Google Scholar
Karttunen, L. (1973). Presuppositions of compound sentences. Linguistic Inquiry, 4(2), 169–193.Google Scholar
Karttunen, L. (1974). Presuppositions and linguistic context. Theoretical Linguistics, 1, 181–194.Google Scholar
Karttunen, L. (2016). Presupposition: What went wrong? In Moroney, M., Little, C. R., Collard, J., & Burgdorf, D. (Eds.), Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT), Vol. 26 (pp. 705–731).Google Scholar
Keenan, E. L. (1971). Two kinds of presupposition in natural language. In Fillmore, C. & Langendoen, T. (Eds.), Studies in Linguistic Semantics (pp. 45–54). New York: Holt, Reinhart and Winston.Google Scholar
Keenan, E. L. (1972). On semantically based grammar. Linguistic Inquiry, 3(4), 413–461.Google Scholar
Kempson, R. M., et al. (1975). Presupposition and the Delimitation of Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lasersohn, P. (1993). Existence presuppositions and background knowledge. Journal of Semantics, 2, 113–122.Google Scholar
Lassiter, D. (2012). Presuppositions, provisos, and probability. Semantics and Pragmatics, 5, 2–1.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C., & Annamalai, E. (1992). Why presuppositions aren’t conventional. In Srivastava, R. N. (Ed.), Language and Text: Studies in Honour of Ashok R. Kelkar (pp. 227–242). Delhi: Kalinga Publications.Google Scholar
Lewis, D. (1979). Scorekeeping in a language game. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 8, 339–359.Google Scholar
Magidor, O. (2013). Category Mistakes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Maier, E. (2015). Parasitic attitudes. Linguistics and Philosophy, 38(3), 205–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maier, E. (2016). Attitudes and mental files in discourse representation theory. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 7(2), 473–490.Google Scholar
Mandelkern, M. (2016). Dissatisfaction theory. In Moroney, M., Little, C. R., Collard, J., & Burgdorf, D. (Eds.), Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT), Vol. 26 (pp. 391–416)Google Scholar
Matthewson, L. (2006). Presuppositions and cross-linguistic variation. In Proceedings of NELS 26 (pp. 63–76).Google Scholar
Matthewson, L. (2008). Pronouns, presuppositions, and semantic variation. In Friedman, T. & Ito, S. (Eds.), Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT), Vol. 18 (pp. 527–550).Google Scholar
Özyildiz, D. (2017). Attitude reports with and without true belief. Semantics and Linguistic Theory, 27, 397–417.Google Scholar
Pavese, C. (2020). Lewis Carroll’s regress and the presuppositional structure of arguments. Linguistics and Philosophy, 45(1), 1–38.Google Scholar
Potts, C. (2005). The Logic of Conventional Implicatures. Oxford Studies in Theoretical Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Potts, C. (2015). Presupposition and implicature. In Lappin, S. & Fox, C. (Eds.), The Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory, 2nd ed. (pp. 168–202). Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Prince, E. F. (1978). A comparison of wh-clefts and it-clefts in discourse. Language, 1978, 883–906.Google Scholar
Recanati, F. (2012). Mental Files. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Reinhart, T. (1981). Pragmatics and linguistics: An analysis of sentence topics. Philosophica, 1, 53–94.Google Scholar
Roberts, C. (2012). Information structure in discourse: Towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics. Semantics and Pragmatics, 5(6), 1–69.Google Scholar
Romoli, J. (2015). The presuppositions of soft triggers are obligatory scalar implicatures. Journal of Semantics, 32(2), 173–219.Google Scholar
Rooth, M. (1992). A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics, 1(1), 75–116.Google Scholar
van der Sandt, R. (1992). Presupposition projection as anaphora resolution. Journal of semantics, 9(4), 333–377.Google Scholar
Schaffer, J. & Szabó, Z. G. (2014). Epistemic comparativism: A contextualist semantics for knowledge ascriptions. Philosophical Studies, 168(2), 491–543.Google Scholar
Schlenker, P. (2007). Expressive presuppositions. Theoretical Linguistics, 33(2), 237–245.Google Scholar
Schlenker, P. (2008). Be articulate: A pragmatic theory of presupposition. Theoretical Linguistics, 34(3), 157–212.Google Scholar
Schlenker, P. (2009). Local contexts. Semantics and Pragmatics, 2(3), 1–78.Google Scholar
Schlenker, P. (2010). Local contexts and local meanings. Philosophical Studies, 151, 115–142.Google Scholar
Schlenker, P. (2021). Triggering presuppositions. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 6(1), 35.Google Scholar
Schlöder, J. J., & Lascarides, A. (2020). Understanding focus: Pitch, placement and coherence. Semantics and Pragmatics, 13, 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schoubye, A. (2009). Descriptions, truth–value intuitions, and questions. Linguistics and Philosophy, 32(6), 583–617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwarz, F. (2019). Presuppositions, projection, and accommodation: Theoretical issues and experimental approaches. In Cummins, C. & Katsos, N. (Eds.), Handbook of Experimental Semantics and Pragmatics (pp. 83–113). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Seuren, P. A. (1988). Presupposition and negation. Journal of Semantics, 6(1), 175–226.Google Scholar
Shanon, B. (1976). On the two kinds of presuppositions in natural language. Foundations of Language, 14(2), 247–249.Google Scholar
Simons, M. (2001). On the conversational basis of some presuppositions. In Hastings, R., Jackson, B., & Zvolenszky, Z. (Eds.), Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT), Vol. 11 (pp. 431–448).Google Scholar
Simons, M. (2004). Presupposition and relevance. In Gendler Szabó, Z. (Ed.), Semantics vs. Pragmatics (pp. 329–355). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Simons, M. (2006). Presupposition without Common Ground. Ms., Carnegie Mellon University.Google Scholar
Simons, M. (2007). Observations on embedding verbs, evidentiality, and presupposition. Lingua, 117(6), 1034–1056.Google Scholar
Simons, M., Roberts, C., Beaver, D., & Tonhauser, J. (2016). The best question: Explaining the projection behavior of factive verbs. Discourse Processes, 54(3), 187–206.Google Scholar
Simons, M., Tonhauser, J., Beaver, D., & Roberts, C. (2010). What projects and why. In Li, N. & Lutz, D. (Eds.), Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT), Vol. 20 (pp. 309–327).Google Scholar
Smith, E. A., & Hall, K. C. (2014). The relationship between projection and embedding environment. In Proceedings of the 48th Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Soames, S. (1982). How presuppositions are inherited: A solution to the projection problem. Linguistic Inquiry, 13(3), 483–545.Google Scholar
Soames, S. (1989). Presupposition. In Gabbay, D. & Guenther, F. (Eds.), Handbook of Philosophical Logic, Vol. IV (pp. 553–616). Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Spenader, J. (2002). Presuppositions in Spoken Discourse. PhD thesis, Stockholm University.Google Scholar
Stalnaker, R. (1998). Pragmatic presuppositions. In Kasher, A. (Ed.), Pragmatics: Critical Concepts. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Stalnaker, R. (1972). Pragmatics. In Davidson, G. H. D. (Ed.), Semantics of Natural Language. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Stalnaker, R. (1973). Presuppositions. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 2(4), 447–457.Google Scholar
Stalnaker, R. (1974). Pragmatic presuppositions. In Munitz, M. & Unger, P. (Eds.), Semantics and Philosophy: Essays (pp. 197–214). New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
Stalnaker, R. C. (2002). Common ground. Linguistics and Philosophy, 25(5), 701–721.Google Scholar
Strawson, P. F. (1950). On referring. Mind, 59(235), 320–344.Google Scholar
Strawson, P. F. (1964). Identifying reference and truth-values. Theoria 30(2), 96–118.Google Scholar
Szabolcsi, A. (2017). Additive presuppositions are derived through activating focus alternatives. In Alexandre Cremers, T. v. G. & Roelofsen, F. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 21st Amsterdam Colloquium (pp. 455–464).Google Scholar
Thomason, R. (1990). Accommodation, meaning, and implicature: Interdisciplinary foundations for pragmatics. In Cohen, P. R., Morgan, J. L., & Pollack, M. E. (Eds.), Intentions in Communication (pp. 326–363). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Tonhauser, J. (2015). Are ‘informative presuppositions’ presuppositions? Language and Linguistics Compass, 9(2), 77–101.Google Scholar
Tonhauser, J. (2016). Prosodic cues to presupposition projection. In Moroney, M., Little, C. R., Collard, J., & Burgdorf, D. (Eds.), Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT), Vol. 26 (pp. 934–960).Google Scholar
Tonhauser, J. (2020). Projection variability in Paraguayan Guaraní. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 38(4), 1263–1302.Google Scholar
Tonhauser, J., Beaver, D., & Degen, J. (2018). How projective is projective content? Gradience in projectivity and at-issueness. Journal of Semantics, 35(3), 495–542.Google Scholar
Tonhauser, J., Beaver, D., Roberts, C., & Simons, M. (2013). Toward a taxonomy of projective content. Language, 89(1), 66–109.Google Scholar
Tonhauser, J., de Marneffe, M.-C., Speer, S. R., & Stevens, J. (2019). On the information structure sensitivity of projective content. Sinn und Bedeutung, 23, 363–390.Google Scholar
Wilson, D. (1975). Presuppositions and Non-Truth-Conditional Semantics. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Wilson, D., & Sperber, D. (1979). Ordered entailments: An alternative to presuppositional theories. In Oh, C. K. & Dineen, D. (Eds.), Syntax and Semantics XI: Presupposition (pp. 299–323). London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Xue, J., & Onea, E. (2011). Correlation between presupposition projection and at-issueness: An empirical study. In Proceedings of the ESSLLI 2011 Workshop on Projective Meaning.Google Scholar
Yablo, S. (2006). Non-catastrophic presupposition failure. In Thomson, J. J. & Byrne, A. (Eds.), Content and Modality: Themes from the Philosophy of Robert C. Stalnaker (pp. 164–190). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Yablo, S. (2014). Aboutness. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Yalcin, S. (2007). Epistemic modals. Mind, 116(464), 983–1026.Google Scholar
Yalcin, S. (2016). Belief as question-sensitive. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 97(1), 23–47.Google Scholar
Zeevat, H. (1992). Presupposition and accommodation in update semantics. Journal of Semantics, 9(4), 379–412.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×